# How do you all remember tarantula names when everyone always shortens the genus?



## OliverWhatever (May 26, 2017)

If it is a spider I am interested in, I'll manage to remember it in most cases, but when someone drops "A.seemani" or "A.minatrix" in a casual conversation, I have no clue what they are talking about, even if I am familiar with the spider.
I'll look at some picture of a beautiful spider on the front page with an A, C, L, or T in front of a generic species name, and have no idea what it actually is.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## basin79 (May 26, 2017)

I don't. Thankfully SwiftKey does though. Phew.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## nicodimus22 (May 26, 2017)

I guess because I only have interest in 15-20 species, and I already know what they are.

I don't pay attention to arboreal or OW species, which brings the amount I have to remember way down.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Trenor (May 26, 2017)

OliverWhatever said:


> If it is a spider I am interested in, I'll manage to remember it in most cases, but when someone drops "A.seemani" or "A.minatrix" in a casual conversation, I have no clue what they are talking about, even if I am familiar with the spider.
> I'll look at some picture of a beautiful spider on the front page with an A, C, L, or T in front of a generic species name, and have no idea what it actually is.


If it's one I'm not as familiar with I just drop it into the google and it tells me. 

I did that a lot when I started out but now days I'm good on most of them.

Reactions: Agree 8


----------



## Andrea82 (May 26, 2017)

OliverWhatever said:


> If it is a spider I am interested in, I'll manage to remember it in most cases, but when someone drops "A.seemani" or "A.minatrix" in a casual conversation, I have no clue what they are talking about, even if I am familiar with the spider.
> I'll look at some picture of a beautiful spider on the front page with an A, C, L, or T in front of a generic species name, and have no idea what it actually is.


Google is your friend 
It also helps to just know a lot of the common genera. Aphonopelma, Brachypelma, Avicularia, Caribena, Grammostola and so on. 
And just use the scientific names yourself if you are posting about them. Practice makes perfect

Reactions: Agree 8


----------



## gypsy cola (May 26, 2017)

I think its because a lot of has done research on most of these species when trying to figure out the next T to get. Usually from context we can figure it out. 

Some still throw me off from time.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Leila (May 26, 2017)

I mean, I sometimes get confused. Example: P. regalis and P. irminia. One is Poecilotheria; the other Psalmopoeus, but I haphazardly assumed they were both Pokies the other day when talking to a friend. Oops.  (I am not super familar with either genus)

I usually have no problem with the shortened form of genus/species though. If I am confused, I do a quick Google search.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2 | Funny 3


----------



## MGery92 (May 26, 2017)

I agree with @Trenor and @Andrea82 , use Google for good. 

@nicodimus22 is right too, if you are interested in certain species or _genus_ (how to conjugate it right?  ), sooner or later you are going to learn the scientific names. It is not that hard, really.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## mconnachan (May 26, 2017)

Leila said:


> I mean, I sometimes get confused. Example: P. regalis and P. irminia. One is Poecilotheria; the other Psalmopoeus, but I haphazardly assumed they were both Pokies the other day when talking to a friend. Oops.  (I am not super familar with either genera.)
> 
> I usually have no problem with the shortened form of genus/species though. If I am confused, I do a quick Google search.


Genera I'm OK with and most sp. but am still learning as always, so I usually ask Cortana (SIMILAIR TO GOOGLE) Once you start to notice the different coloration, eg Brachis, it's quite simple to determine the differences in species.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 26, 2017)

MGery92 said:


> I agree with @Trenor and @Andrea82 , use Google for good.
> 
> @nicodimus22 is right too, if you are interested in certain species or _genus_ (how to conjugate it right?  ), sooner or later you are going to learn the scientific names. It is not that hard, really.


Genera is multiple of genus

Reactions: Agree 3 | Helpful 1


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 26, 2017)

When I was younger I used to be able to remember just about every tarantula scientific name, I guess something seemed special about those scientific names, personally I get more confused with common names, and I get lost among all the types of knees.

Reactions: Agree 9


----------



## Andrea82 (May 26, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> When I was younger I used to be able to remember just about every tarantula scientific name, I guess something seemed special about those scientific names, personally I get more confused with common names, and I get lost among all the types of knees.


And the birdeaters...and the ornamentals.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 26, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> And the birdeaters...and the ornamentals.


Yeah exactly youve got a million different types of birdeaters, and none of them eat birds.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## Trenor (May 26, 2017)

Here comes the common name rant.  It's really not a big deal peeps. We use common names for tons of other things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Moakmeister (May 26, 2017)

Once you get familiar with names over time, you know what the genus is if it's just abreviated. It's mostly the species name that gives it away. If someone mentioned the P regalis, the P irminia, the P cancerides, and the P muticus in the same sentence, I could tell you that they're not in the same genus, because the species names are familiar to me.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Award 1


----------



## Leila (May 26, 2017)

Moakmeister said:


> Once you get familiar with names over time, you know what the genus is if it's just abreviated. It's mostly the species name that gives it away. If someone mentioned the P regalis, the P irminia, the P cancerides, and the P muticus in the same sentence, I could tell you that they're not in the same genus, because the species names are familiar to me.


Well, ok, Moak- I mean, just make me look stupid or whatever...

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2 | Love 2


----------



## Andrea82 (May 26, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Here comes the common name rant.  It's really not a big deal peeps. We use common names for tons of other things.


Nope, pacing myself this time  just had to make one comment on the matter...I'll promise to leave it at that

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Moakmeister (May 26, 2017)

Leila said:


> Well, ok, Moak- I mean, just make me look stupid or whatever...


Oh that was purely a coincidence. Im one of those guys who doesnt read anything in a thread before I post.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Trenor (May 26, 2017)

Leila said:


> Well, ok, Moak- I mean, just make me look stupid or whatever...


Naa, you're fine. Just hit up the google when you need to and before you know it you wont have to.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2


----------



## Leila (May 26, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Naa, you're fine. Just hit up the google when you need to and before you know it you wont have to.


See my first comment.  I already said I use Google. Lol.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## johnny quango (May 26, 2017)

@Leila this isn't a dig at you (that's the important stuff out of the way) @OliverWhatever Ive personally found the longer you're in the hobby the more familiar you become with species/genus whether abbreviated or the full name P regalis or P irminia this will become the norm. I have had issues in the past with H pulchripes and G pulchripes  because they are side by side on a qwerty keyboard the other was S crassipes and H crassipes there as been crossed wires over these in the past

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (May 26, 2017)

OliverWhatever said:


> If it is a spider I am interested in, I'll manage to remember it in most cases, but when someone drops "A.seemani" or "A.minatrix" in a casual conversation, I have no clue what they are talking about, even if I am familiar with the spider.
> I'll look at some picture of a beautiful spider on the front page with an A, C, L, or T in front of a generic species name, and have no idea what it actually is.



From doing it a long time, it's not rocket science.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## GreyPsyche (May 26, 2017)

Honestly, I just remember the most commons ones and the ones that I'm interested in...

Some of the more uncommon ones are still over my head.

One thing that I hate is the reclassification and the amount of absurd common names. It's almost like it doesn't even matter anymore.

Like the B Smithi name change and the C Versicolor....REALLY?

I just know what I want in my collection now anyways, I only use names when ordering them then they become Dan or Tanya or Lou when they get home. Haha. Of course I only really name my females and even then I only use their names when talking to my gf or documenting their molt dates or something of interest.


----------



## Ungoliant (May 26, 2017)

OliverWhatever said:


> I'll look at some picture of a beautiful spider on the front page with an A, C, L, or T in front of a generic species name, and have no idea what it actually is.


I know for a variety of species that interest me. Otherwise, if I don't figure it out from the context, I Google.

That's why I try to use the full name in my post before using any abbreviations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## creepa (May 26, 2017)

If your in the hobby long enough you know what they are... (at least i do.)
I most of the time can guess the genera because i am a nerd like that.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 26, 2017)

johnny quango said:


> @Leila this isn't a dig at you (that's the important stuff out of the way) @OliverWhatever Ive personally found the longer you're in the hobby the more familiar you become with species/genus whether abbreviated or the full name P regalis or P irminia this will become the norm. I have had issues in the past with H pulchripes and G pulchripes  because they are side by side on a qwerty keyboard the other was S crassipes and H crassipes there as been crossed wires over these in the past


Wait so, the more experience you have, the better?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## johnny quango (May 26, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Wait so, the more experience you have, the better?


It isn't fool proof though man so a few still slip through the cracks

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## cold blood (May 26, 2017)

just the same way you find your way around a new city...or the way you learn a new language, or the way you learn how to drive a manual....repetition.   The more you see and use the terms, the  more you remember.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Optimistic 1


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 26, 2017)

cold blood said:


> just the same way you find your way around a new city...or the way you learn a new language, or the way you learn how to drive a manual....repetition.   The more you see and use the terms, the  more you remember.


Amazing

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Ellenantula (May 26, 2017)

I originally only learned the names of the ones I had (and their shortened forms).  
Then, I started remembering common ones mentioned on the boards.  
Then I started learning about less common ones people would post about -- the 'dream' Ts. 
I doubt I could ever learn them all -- there are vast numbers of Ts in the world, plus some get reclassified.
I get by.  And if all else fails... google.


----------



## Venom1080 (May 26, 2017)

Time is your ally when learning the scientific names. Took me like 5 years as a kid to memorize 600 or so pokemon names. I'm sure you guys can handle it now.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## grayzone (May 26, 2017)

Lots of practice lol. Ive drooled over, researched, and owned, countless sp so it kind of becomes 2nd language after a while.
Im lost as can be with common names tho

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Anoplogaster (May 27, 2017)

Best example is when people use the name "E. sp." 

That literally is only meaningful to a tarantula hobbyist because we see it so frequently that we just know what it means. Still bugs me, but I'm adapting

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 27, 2017)

Anoplogaster said:


> Best example is when people use the name "E. sp."
> 
> That literally is only meaningful to a tarantula hobbyist because we see it so frequently that we just know what it means. Still bugs me, but I'm adapting


Why does that bug you?


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 27, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Why does that bug you?


Because of the short cryptic notation


----------



## Andrea82 (May 27, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Because of the short cryptic notation


What's cryptic about it...sp. stands for species. Done. That's not so hard to remember is it?


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 27, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> What's cryptic about it...sp. stands for species. Done. That's not so hard to remember is it?


Uhhh, its letters and letters are like symbols, and symbols are cryptic!

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## TarantulaArvind (May 27, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Genera is multiple of genus


I thought the plural was genii

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## TarantulaArvind (May 27, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Yeah exactly youve got a million different types of birdeaters, and none of them eat birds.


If the bird eaters eat birds, are  the ornamentals used in home decoration?

Reactions: Funny 6 | Creative 1 | Award 1


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 27, 2017)

TarantulaArvind said:


> If the bird eaters eat bird, are  the ornamentals users in home decoration?


Sounds like the start of the next pixars masterpiece.

Reactions: Award 1


----------



## Anoplogaster (May 27, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> What's cryptic about it...sp. stands for species. Done. That's not so hard to remember is it?


Except the "E" can mean anything. Either spell out the genus and note it as "sp." for a single unspecified species, or "spp." for multiple unspecified species. If you abbreviate the genus, you can't use "sp." or "spp." because you're pretty much saying "Any species within a genus that begins with E"

Reactions: Agree 1 | Informative 1 | Lollipop 1


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 27, 2017)

Anoplogaster said:


> Except the "E" can mean anything. Either spell out the genus and note it as "sp." for a single unspecified species, or "spp." for multiple unspecified species. If you abbreviate the genus, you can't use "sp." or "spp." because you're pretty much saying "Any species within a genus that begins with E"


I feel enlightened, have a lollipop.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## TarantulaArvind (May 27, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Sounds like the start of the next pixars masterpiece.


To be fair, I actually like pixar's  movies..  

FINDING GIANT BIRD EATER,  or,  Disney pixar's THE GBB Inc., or yet, THE GOOD POKIE..

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 5


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 27, 2017)

TarantulaArvind said:


> To be fair, I actually like pixar's  movies..
> 
> FINDING GIANT BIRD EATER,  or,  Disney pixar's THE GBB Inc., or yet, THE GOOD POKIE..


The poke G. E

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## boina (May 27, 2017)

viper69 said:


> From doing it a long time, it's not rocket science.


No, it's tarantula science.



Trenor said:


> Here comes the common name rant.  It's really not a big deal peeps. We use common names for tons of other things.


Since @Andrea82 passed up on the opportunity to rant about common names can I do it instead?

Yes, common names are used everywhere and it's so difficult. I mean, I think my English is pretty good, but learning common names in a another language is the worst. Just take birds:

Great tit (Parus major) is Kohlmeise in German (translated: coal tit) but - 
Coal tit (Periparus ater) is Tannenmeise in German (translated: fir tit)

Now try to remember that...

And that's why I hate common names.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Informative 2 | Funny 5 | Love 1 | Award 1 | Lollipop 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 27, 2017)

boina said:


> No, it's tarantula science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have a bunch of tits in my garden??

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 5


----------



## nicodimus22 (May 27, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> I have a bunch of tits in my garden??


Can...can you send me some seeds? I would like to have a similar garden...for science, of course.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 13


----------



## cold blood (May 27, 2017)

Anoplogaster said:


> Except the "E" can mean anything. Either spell out the genus and note it as "sp." for a single unspecified species, or "spp." for multiple unspecified species. If you abbreviate the genus, you can't use "sp." or "spp." because you're pretty much saying "Any species within a genus that begins with E"


this is not a proper way to write it...its lazy internet users cutting corners....in this case the whole genus name, Euthlus, should be written out.....Euthlus sp. red.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## nicodimus22 (May 27, 2017)

I thought it was Euathlus?

Reactions: Agree 1 | Lollipop 1


----------



## Nightstalker47 (May 27, 2017)

cold blood said:


> this is not a proper way to write it...its lazy internet users cutting corners....in this case the whole genus name, Euthlus, should be written out.....Euthlus sp. red.


Damn lazy Internet users cutting corners! Ugh how dare they misspell the name 


nicodimus22 said:


> I thought it was Euathlus?


It is lol.


boina said:


> No, it's tarantula science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How might one acquire a great tit? I'm not too fond of the coal tits or fir tits, but man those great tits are jaw dropping!

Reactions: Funny 7


----------



## Andrea82 (May 27, 2017)

nicodimus22 said:


> Can...can you send me some seeds? I would like to have a similar garden...for science, of course.


I asked mine, but they preferred to stay where they are....bunch of spoiled tits 

This thread went from 'sigh, not another debate on common names, pleeeease' to 'you guys are cracking me up I can't breathe' in like three posts

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## viper69 (May 27, 2017)

boina said:


> No, it's tarantula science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regardless it doesn't take a PhD to know them over time. People tend to remember what they want to remember and use the most. For example, I know the NWs better than the OWs, w/the exception of a few OW genera that are my favorites.


----------



## volcanopele (May 27, 2017)

Generally the species name is unique enough among the 900 or so tarantula species that only the species name is really needed.  Someone could just say _seemanni_ and we would know what you're talking about.  There are a few exceptions.  In my own collection alone, I have a _P. metallica_ and an _A. metallica_.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## mistertim (May 27, 2017)

boina said:


> No, it's tarantula science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, now I know what I'll be naming my first G. pulchra once get one. Coal Tit it is.

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## DubiaW (May 27, 2017)

Has anybody ever experienced shop keepers getting uncomfortable when you use Latin? I prefer the Latin names because it is more useful, but honestly I get embarrassed sometimes when I think I am the only one that is unfamiliar with a new name. The scientific name lends the professional air to both the vendor and the buyer but every once and a while neither one of them actually know what they are looking at and just pretend as they talk about a very interesting species, waiting for the other one to flinch first. This happened to me today at an expo and someone came up and asked what a _Aphonopelma seemani _was. I was successful at mumbling, "Um, I think it is called a stripe knee or a zebra leg....I'm not really sure." The vendor then admitted that he was a fish guy and called the owner over. I swear we are all winging it, but dang those italics are impressive!

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Jason B (May 28, 2017)

Remembering them for the most part is fairly easily, but it really does get complicated when the spider in question hasn't actually been given a proper name. Like the previously mentioned Eauthlus sp. Red, I've heard there is some dispute regarding Eauthlus being the proper genus for the species. Or half the spiders in the _Omothymus_/_Cyriopagopus_/_Ornithoctoninae ._ Thats the stuff I try to keep straight but I find a little more difficult.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

boina said:


> Since @Andrea82 passed up on the opportunity to rant about common names can I do it instead?
> 
> Yes, common names are used everywhere and it's so difficult. I mean, I think my English is pretty good, but learning common names in a another language is the worst. Just take birds:
> 
> ...


Yeah, but you use them for plants and other animals daily with almost no problem. People act as though common names are supposed to have some great meaning :_It doesn't eat birds hahaha_: for the thing they are describing but do they? A Poppy pops how? Just how does a Black Eyed Susan tell you anything about the plant it names? Does a bird that isn't named a Swallow not swallow? 

I have a plant in my front yard that's native to this area and I can go to just about anywhere in this country and use it's common name and they know what it is. If I were to bust out with its scientific name no one would. When was the last time any of you used a scientific name for anything that wasn't tarantula related? We use common names for a lot of things and no one cares.

The argument of they can point to more than one species doesn't even really hold up. There are only a hand full out of a lot that's even been used for more than one T. For everyone you can name that has, I can name 5 that doesn't have that problem. If we were to go back and forth that way I would be surprised if I have to list more than 15 Ts.

As far as the translations from one language to another well that's the global world we live in. I've seen shirts and tattoos and just about everything else that doesn't lend itself well to translation from one language to another. It's tough but how do translations work when there are not scientific names? My friend Stuart translates English to Japanese for a living and he could go on for days on this topic. 

I use scientific names a lot. I use common name as well. What I don't see is what is so bad about common names that makes it a rant worthy hot topic on here so often. No one flips out when I call a Dionaea muscipula a Venus Fly Trap. They nod and the conversation keeps going. Why is that such a show stopper in tarantula conversation?


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Yeah, but you use them for plants and other animals daily with almost no problem. People act as though common names are supposed to have some great meaning :_It doesn't eat birds hahaha_: for the thing they are describing but do they? A Poppy pops how? Just how does a Black Eyed Susan tell you anything about the plant it names? Does a bird that isn't named a Swallow not swallow?
> 
> I have a plant in my front yard that's native to this area and I can go to just about anywhere in this country and use it's common name and they know what it is. If I were to bust out with its scientific name no one would. When was the last time any of you used a scientific name for anything that wasn't tarantula related? We use common names for a lot of things and no one cares.
> 
> ...


Because we are a group of special snowflakes.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## boina (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Yeah, but you use them for plants and other animals daily with almost no problem. People act as though common names are supposed to have some great meaning :_It doesn't eat birds hahaha_: for the thing they are describing but do they? A Poppy pops how? Just how does a Black Eyed Susan tell you anything about the plant it names? Does a bird that isn't named a Swallow not swallow?
> 
> I have a plant in my front yard that's native to this area and I can go to just about anywhere in this country and use it's common name and they know what it is. If I were to bust out with its scientific name no one would. When was the last time any of you used a scientific name for anything that wasn't tarantula related? We use common names for a lot of things and no one cares.
> 
> ...


Actually I think scientific names are not only used in in tarantula conversations. Orchid lovers use scientific names, too. A lot of plant lovers in general use scientific names. It actually makes a conversation across language barriers in our global world a lot easier. I knew Dionaea right away, although I also knew Venus Fly Trap since that translates one to one to German, so not the best example. And common names for birds and plants have been around for centennia, everyone grew up with them. Everyone knows what a Poppy is, but Mexican Red Leg? Tarantula names haven't been around for more than a couple of decades. People are still making up new ones today. So, why not just stick with the scientific names? And for common names not being confusing: If you can keep track of all the various white and red and striped legs and knees and whatever without being confused you are a much more organised person than I am.

Edit: I deal with English common names if I have to by using Google, and usually without a rant, but I don't have to like it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 4 | Love 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 28, 2017)

Can't resist to drop something in the discussion. Just a thought...

Using and making common names seems like a more US thing to do. When going through vendors' lists here, the scientific names come first, with the common names sometimes below that, if at all there. Vendors' lists based in the US seem to start more with the common names and the scientific names under those. 
So I guess it seems like the US likes its common names.
That's fine for you. But it doesn't mean the rest if the world has to use common names as well. 
I know I'll be getting roasted for this so bring it on..

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2 | Funny 1


----------



## keks (May 28, 2017)

boina said:


> Actually I think scientific names are not only used in in tarantula conversations. Orchid lovers use scientific names, too. A lot of plant lovers in general use scientific names. It actually makes a conversation across language barriers in our global world a lot easier. I knew Dionaea right away, although I also knew Venus Fly Trap since that translates one to one to German, so not the best example. And common names for birds and plants have been around for centennia, everyone grew up with them. Everyone knows what a Poppy is, but Mexican Red Leg? Tarantula names haven't been around for more than a couple of decades. People are still making up new ones today. So, why not just stick with the scientific names? And for common names not being confusing: If you can keep track of all the various white and red and striped legs and knees and whatever without being confused you are a much more organised person than I am.
> 
> Edit: I deal with English common names if I have to by using Google, and usually without a rant, but I don't have to like it.


Not only the orchids, or other plants. Years ago, I had turtles and tortoises, snakes (I had a separate terrarium room with many different animals) ..... We only made our conversations with the scientific names even in German language. It was not always funny, to learn the new names after re-naming (and sometimes re-re-naming  ).
But to talk to people from other countries it is the only way to be sure we mean the same species. There was no need to know common names in German, Slovak, Czech, or Polish (language?). And in this time there was also no smartphone with google to search for translating, too  .

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (May 28, 2017)

Jason B said:


> Remembering them for the most part is fairly easily, but it really does get complicated when the spider in question hasn't actually been given a proper name. Like the previously mentioned Eauthlus sp. Red, I've heard there is some dispute regarding Eauthlus being the proper genus for the species.


There shouldn't be any dispute.  The spider sold as Euathlus sp. "red" is an arbitrary pet trade identification based on nothing and is constantly reused incorrectly over and over again despite the relevant taxonomic characters being pictured and published online showing it is actually a Homoeomma sp.  It is an undescribed species from Chile, but a generic ID can be made in both males and females.  No one seems to want to verify this themselves choosing to just repeat the same bad generic name everywhere.  This is true for a lot of the Chilean tarantulas sold on the pet trade.  Species sold as Phrixotrichus are usually a Euathlus species, species sold as a Paraphysa species are Euathlus species because Paraphysa is a junior synonym of Euathlus, and I think I have seen some Euathlus species (as Paraphysa) pictured that are actually Phrixotrichus species.

On the topic of this post in general though, there are times I see abbreviated scientific names and common names and I usually have no idea what is being referred to.  That's when I just click onto something else.  If someone can't be bothered to be clear and concise in their communication at the start, then I don't have the time to ask for clarification.  I spend enough time keeping up with taxonomic changes and their justifications and revised ID keys (where available) that I can't keep up with slang or shorthand too.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

boina said:


> Actually I think scientific names are not only used in in tarantula conversations. Orchid lovers use scientific names, too. A lot of plant lovers in general use scientific names. It actually makes a conversation across language barriers in our global world a lot easier. I knew Dionaea right away, although I also knew Venus Fly Trap since that translates one to one to German, so not the best example. And common names for birds and plants have been around for centennia, everyone grew up with them. Everyone knows what a Poppy is, but Mexican Red Leg? Tarantula names haven't been around for more than a couple of decades. People are still making up new ones today. So, why not just stick with the scientific names? And for common names not being confusing: If you can keep track of all the various white and red and striped legs and knees and whatever without being confused you are a much more organised person than I am.
> 
> Edit: I deal with English common names if I have to by using Google, and usually without a rant, but I don't have to like it.





keks said:


> Not only the orchids, or other plants. Years ago, I had turtles and tortoises, snakes (I had a separate terrarium room with many different animals) ..... We only made our conversations with the scientific names even in German language. It was not always funny, to learn the new names after re-naming (and sometimes re-re-naming  ).
> But to talk to people from other countries it is the only way to be sure we mean the same species. There was no need to know common names in German, Slovak, Czech, or Polish (language?). And in this time there was also no smartphone with google to search for translating, too  .


We find new plant species all the time and they get common names pretty quick. Those imported plants from Brazil I saw last week had common names and on the other side of the card they had the scientific name. No one there used the scientific names that I heard in the two hours I was there.

In the plant group my mother belonged to for years people did both as well. You find scientific names a lot more in specialty groups but still in those groups it wasn't a hot button topic. One thing they did was help to ID local plants and give care instructions for those plants. If a person came to a group meeting to ask about plants and used a common name no one had a problem with it at all.

On here though, I could make a new account and post something about my GBB not doing well and everyone wouldn't pay it a bit of attention. I'd likely get a lot of good help. I could then make a second account and post about my Fire Rump Birdeater not doing well. I'd get a lecture about the evils of common names. Then a big portion of the rest of the thread would be about common name are bad and not what the actual thread was about. Those are both common names yet on here no one cares if you use GBB. I do it all the time.

My point in all this wasn't to justify the use of common names. Use them or don't I can function both ways.



Trenor said:


> Here comes the common name rant.  It's really not a big deal peeps. We use common names for tons of other things.


My point with the above post was why is this such issue that a thread about X turns into a common name are bad discussion. Feel free to swap the X out for My T is sick or How did you learn scientific names or Check out my T where the poster used a common name or mentioned scientific names. You'd think the replies you'd get back would be Sick T care help or Here is how I learned the scientific names or That's a cool T have fun with him. But you're just as likely to see all those threads devolve into a common name are bad discussion. I don't get it when we use common names all the time elsewhere and nothing bad comes from it.

Maybe you're right in a few more centuries we'll finally be used common names for Ts. Then we'll talk about the Fire Rump Birdeater like we do a swallow.


----------



## Andrea82 (May 28, 2017)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> There shouldn't be any dispute.  The spider sold as Euathlus sp. "red" is an arbitrary pet trade identification based on nothing and is constantly reused incorrectly over and over again despite the relevant taxonomic characters being pictured and published online showing it is actually a Homoeomma sp.  It is an undescribed species from Chile, but a generic ID can be made in both males and females.  No one seems to want to verify this themselves choosing to just repeat the same bad generic name everywhere.  This is true for a lot of the Chilean tarantulas sold on the pet trade.  Species sold as Phrixotrichus are usually a Euathlus species, species sold as a Paraphysa species are Euathlus species because Paraphysa is a junior synonym of Euathlus, and I think I have seen some Euathlus species (as Paraphysa) pictured that are actually Phrixotrichus species.
> 
> On the topic of this post in general though, there are times I see abbreviated scientific names and common names and I usually have no idea what is being referred to.  That's when I just click onto something else.  If someone can't be bothered to be clear and concise in their communication at the start, then I don't have the time to ask for clarification.  I spend enough time keeping up with taxonomic changes and their justifications and revised ID keys (where available) that I can't keep up with slang or shorthand too.


Ah, so Euathlus sp. Red changing to Homoeomma sp. Red/Fire is final? 
I get confused, seeing them listed as Euathlus here, but as Homoeomma in vendor's sales lists here in Europe.


----------



## keks (May 28, 2017)

@Trenor
This thread is called "How do you all remember tarantula names when everyone shortens the genus". It is not my intention to say, common names are bad. I only said, *I prefer* *to use scientific names*, because there I know exactly what species it is.

@AphonopelmaTX
If Euathlus sp. red is now the discribed scientific name, or a temporary name before the scientific discribing, I don't care about. With this name I can order this tarantula, and everybody knows, what I mean. With "Rotknievogelspinne" I wouldn't be sure. Is ist now B. hamorii (ex smithi), or not ^^. Like @andrea or @boina said: The lists in Europe to order tarantulas are mainly written with the scientific names (mostly even without common names), so you have to know them, if you want to make an order ^^. 

Please note: My English skills are really not the best, so please excuse me, if my postings maybe sounds impolite. I really do not mean it in this way. And please excuse me, when I overlook something, but to read here is a very hard challenge for me. My best friend is dict.cc . Hard times for me here, but I hope to grow with this challenge ^^.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 28, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Can't resist to drop something in the discussion. Just a thought...
> 
> Using and making common names seems like a more US thing to do. When going through vendors' lists here, the scientific names come first, with the common names sometimes below that, if at all there. Vendors' lists based in the US seem to start more with the common names and the scientific names under those.
> So I guess it seems like the US likes its common names.
> ...


Damn andrea, American shaming again.

Reactions: Funny 2 | Lollipop 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 28, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Damn andrea, American shaming again.


Nice one

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

There lies the problem with common names. How would someone figure out what they were looking at when traveling from one country to the next? The exotic species enthusiast (of any sort) is cosmopolitan. The only solution is a universal naming system, I don't particularly care what locals call a species in Laos versus Burma unless I am operating in those areas but I certainly care what the Latin name is. Visa versa, why would anyone else care what English speaking trade enthusiasts call their pets. There is a big problem with common names even here in the states, the official common name of the genus _Crotaphytus_ is collared lizard, in Texas people crook their head and look at you funny if you call them a collard lizard and correct you, "You mean Mountain Boomers?" They will argue with you if you try to correct them, seriously. If they say "Dagger" they are actually referring to _Yucca elata_ the Soaptree Yucca. Virtually no one in Arizona calls _Aphonopelma chalcodes_ a Desert Blond, they just call it a "Tarantula." Using either the official "Not-so-common" name or the Latin name has the same effect on the locals. They think you are a super smart weirdo or a conceited show off. When talking to anyone out of country the "Not so common" name is also useless. People learn proper common names for the same reason people learn Latin, "to learn the proper terminology," and because calling a collard lizard a mountain boomer makes you sound like a hillbilly in every language.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 28, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> There lies the problem with common names. How would someone figure out what they were looking at when traveling from one country to the next? The exotic species enthusiast (of any sort) is cosmopolitan. The only solution is a universal naming system, I don't particularly care what locals call a species in Laos versus Burma unless I am operating in those areas but I certainly care what the Latin name is. Visa versa, why would anyone else care what English speaking trade enthusiasts call their pets. There is a big problem with common names even here in the states, the official common name of the genus _Crotaphytus_ is collared lizard, in Texas people crook their head and look at you funny if you call them a collard lizard and correct you, "You mean Mountain Boomers?" They will argue with you if you try to correct them, seriously. If they say "Dagger" they are actually referring to _Yucca elata_ the Soaptree Yucca. Virtually no one in Arizona calls _Aphonopelma chalcodes_ a Desert Blond, they just call it a "Tarantula." Using either the official "Not-so-common" name or the Latin name has the same effect on the locals. They think you are a super smart weirdo or a conceited show off. When talking to anyone out of country the "Not so common" name is also useless. People learn proper common names for the same reason people learn Latin, "to learn the proper terminology," and because calling a collard lizard a mountain boomer makes you sound like a hillbilly in every language.


Not sure if post is pro-scientific name or against....

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Not sure if post is pro-scientific name or against....
> View attachment 241649


Proper common names are less commonly used by the locals who just make up a name or are ignorant. Neither the proper common name or the scientific name are useful when talking to locals. You might as well use the scientific name because it is more correct and more people world wide will understand you. Although Proper common names might be something that is seen as American thing if you look closer it doesn't even get used on a local level here. When I run into an enthusiast in the field around here they know the Latin names of what they are dealing with, most everyone else can't tell the difference between a tarantula or a wolf spider. Proper common names are useless on a local level. You know, plebeians?


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> There lies the problem with common names. How would someone figure out what they were looking at when traveling from one country to the next? The exotic species enthusiast (of any sort) is cosmopolitan. The only solution is a universal naming system, I don't particularly care what locals call a species in Laos versus Burma unless I am operating in those areas but I certainly care what the Latin name is. Visa versa, why would anyone else care what English speaking trade enthusiasts call their pets. There is a big problem with common names even here in the states, the official common name of the genus _Crotaphytus_ is collared lizard, in Texas people crook their head and look at you funny if you call them a collard lizard and correct you, "You mean Mountain Boomers?" They will argue with you if you try to correct them, seriously. If they say "Dagger" they are actually referring to _Yucca elata_ the Soaptree Yucca. Virtually no one in Arizona calls _Aphonopelma chalcodes_ a Desert Blond, they just call it a "Tarantula." Using either the official "Not-so-common" name or the Latin name has the same effect on the locals. They think you are a super smart weirdo or a conceited show off. When talking to anyone out of country the "Not so common" name is also useless. People learn proper common names for the same reason people learn Latin, "to learn the proper terminology," and because calling a collard lizard a mountain boomer makes you sound like a hillbilly in every language.


What do you call a gold fish man? Have you never called a swallow a swallow? Anyone not know what a poison dart frog is? Anyone have trouble figuring out what a rattlesnake is? Have you ever called a rattlesnake anything else? Does anyone over seas not know what a rattlesnake is? Even if you didn't know what all those thing were right off the bat would it be hard to find out? All of those are common names and people use them all the time without being thought a hillbilly or what ever term you want to use for someone with less learning.

There is also a big difference between a common name and my grandmother referring to a chicken (which is a common name BTW) as a yard bird.  She also called the black ones with a silver looking band around their necks a ring neck but that's not a common name either. Do you go into a restaurant and order fried Gallus gallus domesticus? Or do you, like millions of others, just go get some fried chicken? 

I can point out so many more common names we use every day and no one cares. We do this all the time and it's not a big deal. Do it with Ts and suddenly no one knows what your talking about.


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> What do you call a gold fish man? Have you never called a swallow a swallow? Anyone not know what a poison dart frog is? Anyone have trouble figuring out what a rattlesnake is? Have you ever called a rattlesnake anything else? Does anyone over seas not know what a rattlesnake is? Even if you didn't know what all those thing were right off the bat would it be hard to find out? All of those are common names and people use them all the time without being thought a hillbilly or what ever term you want to use for someone with less learning.
> 
> There is also a big difference between a common name and my grandmother referring to a chicken (which is a common name BTW) as a yard bird.  She also called the black ones with a silver looking band around their necks a ring neck but that's not a common name either. Do you go into a restaurant and order fried Gallus gallus domesticus? Or do you, like millions of others, just go get some fried chicken?
> 
> I can point out so many more common names we use every day and no one cares. We do this all the time and it's not a big deal. Do it with Ts and suddenly no one knows what your talking about.


Definitely going to go order some fried gallus now.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Lollipop 1


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Proper common names are less commonly used by the locals who just make up a name or are ignorant. Neither the proper common name or the scientific name are useful when talking to locals. You might as well use the scientific name because it is more correct and more people world wide will understand you. Although Proper common names might be something that is seen as American thing if you look closer it doesn't even get used on a local level here. When I run into an enthusiast in the field around here they know the Latin names of what they are dealing with, most everyone else can't tell the difference between a tarantula or a wolf spider. Proper common names are useless on a local level. You know, plebeians?


Now we have proper common names? Vs what? Un-proper common names? Who decides which is which between the two? Where is that list?

Calling people plebeians is just tacky bro. Just because someone doesn't know as much as you on a topic doesn't mean you should put them down.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

To make things a little more complicated enthusiasts also go one step beyond abbreviating the genus. Sometimes it is conjugated or shortened.  _Poecilotheria_ becomes "Pokies" and something like _Diplocentrus spitzeri _becomes "Spitz." It's easier to yell in field when you are collecting but in bad taste if you are talking to anyone who isn't local.


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Definitely going to go order some fried gallus now.


Video it, cause I want to see what the lady working at KFC reaction is. Should be good for some amusement.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> What do you call a gold fish man? Have you never called a swallow a swallow? Anyone not know what a poison dart frog is? Anyone have trouble figuring out what a rattlesnake is? Have you ever called a rattlesnake anything else? Does anyone over seas not know what a rattlesnake is? Even if you didn't know what all those thing were right off the bat would it be hard to find out? All of those are common names and people use them all the time without being thought a hillbilly or what ever term you want to use for someone with less learning.
> 
> There is also a big difference between a common name and my grandmother referring to a chicken (which is a common name BTW) as a yard bird.  She also called the black ones with a silver looking band around their necks a ring neck but that's not a common name either. Do you go into a restaurant and order fried Gallus gallus domesticus? Or do you, like millions of others, just go get some fried chicken?
> 
> I can point out so many more common names we use every day and no one cares. We do this all the time and it's not a big deal. Do it with Ts and suddenly no one knows what your talking about.


You call a chicken a chicken. I call a chicken a kip. Would you have known that if I didn't tell you just now?
Why do non-native english or even American speakers have to learn and use  an english or American word for an animal that, with the exeption of Aphonopelma, isn't even native to North America in the first place?
I know a rattlesnake is a rattlesnake because it is native to (amongst other countries) America. 

Darn it, caught in with this again...
Scientific language is universal. It is the same everywhere, and for good reason. What would happen if doctors in the US were suddenly making up their own names for surgeries and bodyparts, and expect the rest of the world to go with that? 

And no, I am not against the US at all, if I was, I wouldn't be here. But expecting from the rest of the world to follow YOUR common names is unpolite to say the least, and very self-centered.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Award 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Now we have proper common names? Vs what? Un-proper common names? Who decides which is which between the two? Where is that list?
> 
> Calling people plebeians is just tacky bro. Just because someone doesn't know as much as you on a topic doesn't mean you should put them down.


Sometimes I forget that sarcasm is rude in other countries.


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Sometimes I forget that sarcasm is rude in other countries.


Was it sarcasm? A toneless post does little to allude to things like sarcasm.


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> You call a chicken a chicken. I call a chicken a kip. Would you have known that if I didn't tell you just now?
> Why do non-native english or even American speakers have to learn and use  an english or American word for an animal that, with the exeption of Aphonopelma, isn't even native to North America in the first place?
> I know a rattlesnake is a rattlesnake because it is native to (amongst other countries) America.
> 
> ...


Your right, I wouldn't have known what a kip was. But be honest, if you didn't know chicken would you have been any more likely to know Gallus gallus domesticus without the same google search you could have used to find chicken?

I mean this was what turned up based on what I knew about your location and kip in 10 sec on a google search.






No one said you needed to learn anything. Use scientific names if you want. It just trips me out at the blow back I see over and over from this topic when we all (the whole world not just us US peeps) use tons of common names daily. Without a care.


----------



## Andrea82 (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Your right, I wouldn't have known what a kip was. But be honest, if you didn't know chicken would you have been any more likely to know Gallus gallus domesticus without the same google search you could have used to find chicken?
> 
> I mean this was what turned up based on what I knew about your location and kip in 10 sec on a google search.
> 
> ...


I understand that seems unequal.

I think this discussion comes up so frequently because of the fact virtually everyone on the world comes here. And in most European countries, keeping Theraphosidae is a specialized hobby. And also, we in Europe HAVE to use the scientific names because if I would ask a Polish breeder for a 'roodknie vogelspin' (which would be the literal translation for red knee tarantula) he would be like, 'what the hell are you talking about', probably in Polish back. 
While in the US, you can travel for twenty hours, and still be in english-speaking country. So maybe the need for scientific names is not as high as it is for Europe, making us using them more. 
But still, on an international forum like this, scientific names would be better to make sure everyone knows about which spider the op is talking imo.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2 | Love 1


----------



## boina (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Your right, I wouldn't have known what a kip was. But be honest, if you didn't know chicken would you have been any more likely to know Gallus gallus domesticus without the same google search you could have used to find chicken?
> 
> I mean this was what turned up based on what I knew about your location and kip in 10 sec on a google search.
> 
> ...


You know, I don't care at all what you call any tarantula when you are talking to a fellow American enthusiast. But, as @Andrea82 said, if you use common American names on this board you basically exclude everyone who isn't American, or at least British, from the conversation, or tell them implicitely to do the work for you and google what you are talking about. I do agree with Andrea, it somehow feels very impolite. But this is an American board after all, so maybe not.


----------



## boina (May 28, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> I understand that seems unequal.
> 
> I think this discussion comes up so frequently because of the fact virtually everyone on the world comes here. And in most European countries, keeping Theraphosidae is a specialized hobby. And also, we in Europe HAVE to use the scientific names because if I would ask a Polish breeder for a 'roodknie vogelspin' (which would be the literal translation for red knee tarantula) he would be like, 'what the hell are you talking about', probably in Polish back.
> While in the US, you can travel for twenty hours, and still be in english-speaking country. So maybe the need for scientific names is not as high as it is for Europe, making us using them more.
> But still, on an international forum like this, scientific names would be better to make sure everyone knows about which spider the op is talking imo.


And again we posted simultanously...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> I understand that seems unequal.
> 
> I think this discussion comes up so frequently because of the fact virtually everyone on the world comes here. And in most European countries, keeping Theraphosidae is a specialized hobby. And also, we in Europe HAVE to use the scientific names because if I would ask a Polish breeder for a 'roodknie vogelspin' (which would be the literal translation for red knee tarantula) he would be like, 'what the hell are you talking about', probably in Polish back.
> While in the US, you can travel for twenty hours, and still be in english-speaking country. So maybe the need for scientific names is not as high as it is for Europe, making us using them more.
> But still, on an international forum like this, scientific names would be better to make sure everyone knows about which spider the op is talking imo.


That's fair. I can see where you're coming from. Again, I got no beef with using scientific names. I just don't see why it's such a big deal when tarantula common names are used as opposed to any other common name.


----------



## Andrea82 (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> That's fair. I can see where you're coming from. Again, I got no beef with using scientific names. I just don't see why it's such a big deal when tarantula common names are used as opposed to any other common name.


Yeah...it's the other way around for me....
But I think we both know the other persons' statement by now


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

boina said:


> You know, I don't care at all what you call any tarantula when you are talking to a fellow American enthusiast. But, as @Andrea82 said, if you use common American names on this board you basically exclude everyone who isn't American, or at least British, from the conversation, or tell them implicitely to do the work for you and google what you are talking about.


How does using a common name exclude anyone? I don't get that at all. There were a ton on them recently used in "What is your most hated common name" thread and no one there was confused about what names those common names pointed to. No one on that thread posted - I don't understand what a 'mexican red rump' tarantula is. There was no confusion about what T that referred to. No one was excluded from that thread because of common names.



boina said:


> I do agree with Andrea, it somehow feels very impolite.


How is it impolite to say I just don't get why tarantula common names are such a big deal when other common names are not? I'm not trying to be impolite or exclude anyone. I'm not sure what I did to make you think I was.


----------



## boina (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> How does using a common name exclude anyone? I don't get that at all. There were a ton on them recently used in "What is your most hated common name" thread and no one there was confused about what names those common names pointed to. No one on that thread posted - I don't understand what a 'mexican red rump' tarantula is. There was no confusion about what T that referred to. No one was excluded from that thread because of common names.
> 
> 
> How is it impolite to say I just don't get why tarantula common names are such a big deal when other common names are not? I'm not trying to be impolite or exclude anyone. I'm not sure what I did to make you think I was.


I didn't say you were impolite. You don't usually use common names as far as I remember .

So what you are saying is: since my English is good enough to know what a swallow or a poppy is I can as well learn common American tarantula names if I want to understand what people are talking about on this forum, since it is an American forum, after all? And if I don't know the names, well, too bad?

I don't really mean it as harsh as this may sound. It's my choice to come here and post or not and if people insist on using very uncommon common names (I think someone used the common name for M. peterklaasi...) and I don't know what the hell they are talking about I don't need to respond to that post (as in the common name thread, for example). This is just a forum, and whether I can post here or not or understand anything is not essential for anyones life or happiness, so it's all good .


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Now we have proper common names? Vs what? Un-proper common names? Who decides which is which between the two? Where is that list?
> 
> Calling people plebeians is just tacky bro. Just because someone doesn't know as much as you on a topic doesn't mean you should put them down.


Yes there are proper common names that are excepted among scientists who speak a certain language. In an English speaking journal paper on _Crotaphytus bicinctores_ it would also contain the proper (or accepted) common name Great Basin Collard Lizard in the title. An improper common name is something like the local term "mountain boomer" or even just "Collared Lizard" because there are more than one species of _Crotaphytus.
_

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 28, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> You call a chicken a chicken. I call a chicken a kip. Would you have known that if I didn't tell you just now?
> Why do non-native english or even American speakers have to learn and use  an english or American word for an animal that, with the exeption of Aphonopelma, isn't even native to North America in the first place?
> I know a rattlesnake is a rattlesnake because it is native to (amongst other countries) America.
> 
> ...


Hot fire


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

boina said:


> So what you are saying is: since my English is good enough to know what a swallow or a poppy is I can as well learn common American tarantula names if I want to understand what people are talking about on this forum, since it is an American forum, after all? And if I don't know the names, well, too bad?


I'm not saying any of that. Maybe I'm not being clear in what I wrote. I am wondering why tarantula common names cause such a big discussion when many other common names for animals and plants on here do not.

I'm still not sure how asking that goes into a US board discussion on people and posting.

Maybe it was taken wrong when I pointed out that it was just as easy to google the common name as it was to google a scientific name if you didn't know them of the top of your head. That wasn't a dig on anyone. I wasn't saying that if you want to post here you have to do extra work to fit in because you are not a native English speaker. It is literally what I do every time I come across a name (scientific or common) or any word (in any language) I don't know. I have even google common names because even though they are in English I didn't know what a Salmon Pink Birdeater was when I first heard of it. There again, I didn't know what a Lasiodora parahybana was either. In both cases I  had to look them up to see which T they meant.

It just seemed odd to me that all these other (non T) common names didn't seem to cause a problem. Maybe it has to do with other plant and animal common names being more common world wide as someone suggested. Or like @Andrea82 said it's easier for you to keep track across multiple languages you encounter regularly. I don't know.

Regardless, it is my hope no one is put off from posting here or anywhere else based on a simple discussion on why some common names bother people more than others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## boina (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> I'm not saying any of that. Maybe I'm not being clear in what I wrote. I am wondering why tarantula common names cause such a big discussion when many other common names for animals and plants on here do not.
> 
> I'm still not sure how asking that goes into a US board discussion on people and posting.
> 
> ...


Oh, I love discussions, simple or otherwise, and sometimes I may take them further than I should - and this may just be such a case. Anyway, it's 1 am around here and before I make a complete fool of myself (because tired and not thinking too straight anymore), let's just say I think some comon names sound entirely silly (Salmon Pink Birdeater - I mean, really??) and I don't want to have to learn them and everyone is welcome to disagree .

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bearded Brian (May 28, 2017)

I never name my T's........Alright maybe i do, but quietly to myself as my good lady always seems to blurt out something like Delilah, i'm like ah shiz (to myself of course) sure she looks like a Delilah.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> I'm not saying any of that. Maybe I'm not being clear in what I wrote. I am wondering why tarantula common names cause such a big discussion when many other common names for animals and plants on here do not.
> 
> I'm still not sure how asking that goes into a US board discussion on people and posting.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing that people make a stink over the scientific and common names of tarantulas on this forum because it is a specialized forum that focuses on tarantulas. Just a hunch.


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

You should try hanging out with a scientist for a while. If you think memorizing scientific names is a pain in the butt just wait until a doctorate is correcting your Latin pronunciation every time you think you know something. I've been corrected enough times that a mispronounced Latin name or putting the accent in the wrong spot sounds like fingernails on a chalk board. "It's Le-vi-o-sa not Levi-osa."

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Trenor (May 28, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> I'm guessing that people make a stink over the scientific and common names of tarantulas on this forum because it is a specialized forum that focuses on tarantulas. Just a hunch.


So if this was a snake forum people would be making a "Stink" over someone posting using rattlesnake instead of it's scientific name? Dude, you crack me up.


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Was it sarcasm? A toneless post does little to allude to things like sarcasm.


You don't find using the Roman term for "commoner" in a discussion about using Latin names in conversation just the least bit tongue in cheek? But in a conversation about Latin I'll take "toneless" as a compliment. Just saying.


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

Trenor said:


> So if this was a snake forum people would be making a "Stink" over someone posting using rattlesnake instead of it's scientific name? Dude, you crack me up.


Rattlesnakes were my primary focus for over a decade. I worked at the NTRC during my university years. People that are enthusiasts of herpetology are just as thin skinned as archnology enthusiasts. There is a big difference in the two pet markets though. The reptile market is more mainstream and there are numerous mutations, morphs and variants available that do not have anything to do with taxonomy. Arachnology is more specialized and there are fewer mutations so the discussion revolves primarily around taxonomy and locality of specimens. I assure you that if you were to refer to a Grand Canyon Pink Rattlesnake as _Crotalus viridus abyssus _intead of _C. abyssus_ you would definitely get push back. There are far fewer species to memorize and it would show a lack of even the most minimal effort to inform oneself before joining the conversation. Arachnology is so expansive that people are very forgiving when you don't know the thousands of names required to have an informed conversation.


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 28, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Rattlesnakes were my primary focus for over a decade. I worked at the NTRC during my university years. People that are enthusiasts of herpetology are just as thin skinned as archnology enthusiasts. There is a big difference in the two pet markets though. The reptile market is more mainstream and there are numerous mutations, morphs and variants available that do not have anything to do with taxonomy. Arachnology is more specialized and there are fewer mutations so the discussion revolves primarily around taxonomy and locality of specimens. I assure you that if you were to refer to a Grand Canyon Pink Rattlesnake as _Crotalus viridus abyssus _intead of _C. abyssus_ you would definitely get push back. There are far fewer species to memorize and it would show a lack of even the most minimal effort to inform oneself before joining the conversation. Arachnology is so expansive that people are very forgiving when you don't know the thousands of names required to have an informed conversation.


Call me pedantic but you dont need to know thousands of names to have an informed conversation.


----------



## Hoshnobobo (May 28, 2017)

They all kind of muddle together until I ether get it and read it off the side of the enclosure during feeding or In my management app a bunch times, or if I find a new one for my wish list and look into it a bunch. At this point it helps that I've seen so many I can use context clues. Aphonopelmma and Bracypelma for example seem easy enough to recognize.


----------



## Jason B (May 28, 2017)

keks said:


> @Trenor
> This thread is called "How do you all remember tarantula names when everyone shortens the genus". It is not my intention to say, common names are bad. I only said, *I prefer* *to use scientific names*, because there I know exactly what species it is.
> 
> @AphonopelmaTX
> ...


This is what I find interesting, we get all bent out of shape using scientific names rather then common names, but we don't care if the scientific name were using is even the proper name. Seems kind of foolish that were so dead set on having scientific names we don't care if its the proper name, in the case of Euathlus sp. Red since its doesn't have a scientific name, we as a hobby just make something up in this case getting the genus wrong. And thats somehow better then if we were to say just give it a common name. I myself would rather use scientific names, but I also laugh when there are alot of species that don't have scientific names and people get bent out of shape about using incorrect scientific name, doesn't matter if the name is right just as long as its scientific.


----------



## Venom1080 (May 28, 2017)

Fun fact. Poecilotheria is pronounced poe- cilo- theria. Not poke-lo-theria. The term pokies, is also a common name that annoys me and plain incorrect.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Call me pedantic but you dont need to know thousands of names to have an informed conversation.


Of course not. But people that want to get involved in an in depth conversation where people are using the Latin name and scientific terms can go through the minimal effort to memorize just that one name. I feel honored when people who have spent so much time researching a specialized hobby take the time to explain how to sex a spider or tell two subspecies apart. A lot of the knowledge that is being shared here has been learned though diligence and first hand experience. The entire point of the discussion is to educate people and share knowledge. I'm not going to complain about the nomenclature and terms when I deliberately entered the conversation to learn them. We have google, it doesn't take sifting through physical paperwork to learn a name in return for a conversation with an expert in the field.


----------



## DubiaW (May 28, 2017)

Venom1080 said:


> Fun fact. Poecilotheria is pronounced poe- cilo- theria. Not poke-lo-theria. The term pokies, is also a common name that annoys me and plain incorrect.


That nickname has been has been killing me too. But what if I told you that "oe" is a Latin dipthong pronounced with a long "e" sound? Yeah, I know. How Pedantic. As in the word Foetus or amoeba.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## keks (May 29, 2017)

Jason B said:


> This is what I find interesting, we get all bent out of shape using scientific names rather then common names, but we don't care if the scientific name were using is even the proper name. Seems kind of foolish that were so dead set on having scientific names we don't care if its the proper name, in the case of Euathlus sp. Red since its doesn't have a scientific name, we as a hobby just make something up in this case getting the genus wrong. And thats somehow better then if we were to say just give it a common name. I myself would rather use scientific names, but I also laugh when there are alot of species that don't have scientific names and people get bent out of shape about using incorrect scientific name, doesn't matter if the name is right just as long as its scientific.


How would you call Euathlus sp. red when it has no correct name? Could be little bit hard, to order "the tarantula with the nice, red spot on it's back"  . Joke!

Let me explain something, maybe it makes this (European) behavior here a little bit more comprehensible:
In Europe, you are demonised (?) when you use common names. Europeans are very rigorous in that case. One reason, why I am on this board here, is, that the most boards in Europe are very unkind and impolite. There is often a very angry vibe. I don't understand this, and I don't agree with this behavior. Everybody earns respect. Here is i nice atmosphere. So I am here with you, struggling and hard working with my Englisch .
When I (here in Europe) order a "Rotknievogelspinne" , I would get nothing but a big "?" from the trader. When I order an Euathlus spec. red, I get a nice tarantula. Hopefully ^^. And this term is used everywhere, apparently in USA too, you know this species. Of course you can call it a common name too, but everyone knows what I mean. This is all I want. Everything more is fine for scientists, I am not one. 
When Euathlus sp. red gets its correct scientific name, I will use this name. But I learned, not to use "Rotknievogelspinne". It can be Brachypelma hamorii (ex smithi), but it could be a B. auratum too. Or anything completely different species, because common names here are used by people that have no skills of tarantulas and are mostly used wrong. 

Let's resume: In USA it is usual, to use common names. No problem, I can learn it too. It is only a bit more work apart from trying to understand what I am reading here. 
Google helps.
In Europe it is not usual, to use common names. It is no problem for me too, I learned many scientific names. 
(But they are not sure too, and can also confuse in the hard way, like this time with Brachypelma smithi/hamorii/annitha  .)
But maybe you can keep this on your mind, and makes some strange things for you clearer.

Sorry for eventually made mistakes, it is 7 o'clock in the morning and my coffee still doesn't work effectively  . This is a hard breakfast  .

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 29, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> Hot fire


Sorry...you lost me this time...hot fire?


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 29, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Sorry...you lost me this time...hot fire?


It means "burn", as in that message was effective, its what us americans say when a form of criticism is either acknowledged as effective by the sender or vicariously. It could also just mean that song is good etc.


----------



## Andrea82 (May 29, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> It means "burn", as in that message was effective, its what us americans say when a form of criticism is either acknowledged as effective by the sender or vicariously.


Ah...learn something new everyday, thank you

Reactions: Lollipop 1


----------



## Leila (May 29, 2017)

BishopiMaster said:


> It means "burn", as in that message was effective, its what us americans say when a form of criticism is either acknowledged as effective by the sender or vicariously. It could also just mean that song is good etc.


I'm American, and I had never heard anyone use 'hot fire' instead of 'burn' until just now.  Please don't be offended, as I am only teasing. This thread got too serious, you guys... :wideyed::wideyed:

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 29, 2017)

Leila said:


> I'm American, and I had never heard anyone use 'hot fire' instead of 'burn' until just now.  Please don't be offended, as I am only teasing. This thread got too serious, you guys... :wideyed::wideyed:


Haha no offense taken.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 29, 2017)

It's funny that people feel a sense of comfort when they know the common name of a species they are looking at. In the case of the _Apnonopelma seemanni _that were at the expo everyone seemed uncomfortable not knowing the common name of the T. Once it was verified that it was a Stripe Knee Tarantula everyone was satisfied and the conversation ended. No pertinent information had actually been exchanged, even the country of origin.


----------



## Trenor (May 29, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> It's funny that people feel a sense of comfort when they know the common name of a species they are looking at. In the case of the _Apnonopelma seemanni _that were at the expo everyone seemed uncomfortable not knowing the common name of the T. Once it was verified that it was a Stripe Knee Tarantula everyone was satisfied and the conversation ended. No pertinent information had actually been exchanged, even the country of origin.


I attended six or so reptile/tarantula shows just last year and I've never seen this. Every tarantula vendor I saw had the scientific names labeled on their all their stock. They may also have the common names listed but I've never seen anyone have a problem with it if they didn't. Most of the good ones also have photos of what their slings would look like as adults on the sheet that listed what they were selling.

I've seen some people who only knew the tarantula they were looking for by it's common name and asked the vendor if they had one using it. I saw a guy show a vendor which T he was looking for on his phone cause he couldn't pronounce the name. I've never seen anyone have an issue because someone didn't use a "comforting" common name at a show. 

Maybe people here are more laid back or something. I dunno. I've hit shows in both NC/SC over the years and this has not been a problem I've ever seen.


----------



## Grimmdreadly (May 29, 2017)

Trenor said:


> If it's one I'm not as familiar with I just drop it into the google and it tells me.
> 
> I did that a lot when I started out but now days I'm good on most of them.


That's how I've done it. I keep up with the ones I'm interested in, surely, but I'm interested in so many that between google and keeping up I'm becoming really knowledgeable


----------



## DubiaW (May 29, 2017)

Trenor said:


> I attended six or so reptile/tarantula shows just last year and I've never seen this. Every tarantula vendor I saw had the scientific names labeled on their all their stock. They may also have the common names listed but I've never seen anyone have a problem with it if they didn't. Most of the good ones also have photos of what their slings would look like as adults on the sheet that listed what they were selling.
> 
> I've seen some people who only knew the tarantula they were looking for by it's common name and asked the vendor if they had one using it. I saw a guy show a vendor which T he was looking for on his phone cause he couldn't pronounce the name. I've never seen anyone have an issue because someone didn't use a "comforting" common name at a show.
> 
> Maybe people here are more laid back or something. I dunno. I've hit shows in both NC/SC over the years and this has not been a problem I've ever seen.





Trenor said:


> Yeah, but you use them for plants and other animals daily with almost no problem. People act as though common names are supposed to have some great meaning :_It doesn't eat birds hahaha_: for the thing they are describing but do they? A Poppy pops how? Just how does a Black Eyed Susan tell you anything about the plant it names? Does a bird that isn't named a Swallow not swallow?


Here is a quote of you making fun of people who act as as if common names have some great meaning (from this same thread). You are criticizing me for making a very similar observation. Do you really expect me to believe that you have never seen someone walk up to a display table and look at a scientific name and ask what the common name is and then nod and walk away satisfied? We have all seen that. You just argue for the sake of argument right? I read through a few of your posts on this thread and you do this to people a lot, "Quote and ridicule." 

I usually don't post on the T's forum even though I keep T's because I am a former reptile enthusiast that is just barely cutting my teeth in the invertebrate hobby. I read every day and have already started a little breeding project. It has been 15 years since I had attended an expo until the one last Saturday. I have high respect for the use of scientific names and terms because of my scientific background and this is one of the first conversations I've felt like I could contribute to. Thanks for making this conversation unpleasant. In the future could you just leave me alone please.


----------



## Trenor (May 30, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Here is a quote of you making fun of people who act as as if common names have some great meaning (from this same thread).


I took that directly from a quote in a recent thread on here where the big problem they had with common names is that they did not describe traits about the T they were used for. The person said the reason they didn't like the common name Birdeater was because the tarantulas they described did not eat birds. I was pointing out how there are a lot of common names that do not describe the plants or animal they are used for. It wasn't intended to be a dig on anyone.



DubiaW said:


> Do you really expect me to believe that you have never seen someone walk up to a display table and look at a scientific name and ask what the common name is and then nod and walk away satisfied?


I've never seen anyone complain about not getting a common name from a vendor at a show.



DubiaW said:


> I have high respect for the use of scientific names and terms because of my scientific background and this is one of the first conversations I've felt like I could contribute to.


I use scientific names as well. If you see me post on here I almost always use them. (except when I'm lazy and use GBB) I'm not bashing the use of scientific names. I just don't get why it's such a show stopper when someone posts a T common name. That's it. The whole point I was making is that we use them all the time for other things (their common names have the same flaws as T common names) and no one is bother by it.



DubiaW said:


> Thanks for making this conversation unpleasant. In the future could you just leave me alone please.


Sure, best of luck.


----------



## D Sherlod (May 30, 2017)

Any specialized forum that I have belonged to prefer scientific names. Rattlesnake and goldfish are generic terms like tarantula.

Scientific names are just as easy to learn as common names I like both...

Now learning to pronounce  and spell them is a whole other story

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Leila (May 30, 2017)

D Sherlod said:


> Any specialized forum that I have belonged to prefer scientific names. Rattlesnake and goldfish are generic terms like tarantula.
> 
> Scientific names are just as easy to learn as common names I like both...
> 
> Now learning to pronounce  and spell them is a whole other story


Glad I'm not the only one who looks at some of the scientific names, attempts to pronounce one, and goes

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 30, 2017)

Leila said:


> Glad I'm not the only one who looks at some of the scientific names, attempts to pronounce one, and goes


I learned this week that Poecilotheria is pronounced Pee-suh-luh-THI-ree-uh. Don't feel bad.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 30, 2017)

Here is a link to a site that tells you how to pronounce the the names of arachnids. Now we can correct everyone in the trade! Bwah ha ha! 

http://www.atshq.org/articles/beechwp1.html

Reactions: Informative 1 | Love 1


----------



## Leila (May 30, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Here is a link to a site that tells you how to pronounce the the names of arachnids. Now we can correct everyone in the trade! Bwah ha ha!
> 
> http://www.atshq.org/articles/beechwp1.html


I've been pronouncing "chalcodes" incorrectly this whole time....


----------



## Leila (May 30, 2017)

Looks like: chal-codes
Really sounds like: kaal-kuh-dees.

:mind blown:

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## keks (May 30, 2017)

Audi*o* samples would be interesting on this page  .

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Andrea82 (May 30, 2017)

@Leila @D Sherlod 
For help with pronunciation, petkokc ( The Dark Den) has a series on them:

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 1


----------



## BishopiMaster (May 30, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> @Leila @D Sherlod
> For help with pronunciation, petkokc ( The Dark Den) has a series on them:


thats no fun

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## mconnachan (May 30, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Here comes the common name rant.  It's really not a big deal peeps. We use common names for tons of other things.


One of my irks is when people say I'm away to "Hoover" umm don't you mean vacuum........

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Vermis (May 30, 2017)

For me I think it helped that I was interested in dinosaurs (andotherprehistoricanimals) and never grew out of it.



> Grant liked kids - it was impossible not to like any group so openly enthusiastic about dinosaurs. Grant used to watch kids in museums as they stared open-mouthed at the big skeletons rising above them. He wondered what their fascination really represented. He finally decided that children liked dinosaurs because these giant creatures personified the uncontrollable force of looming authority. They were symbolic parents. Fascinating and frightening, like parents. And kids loved them, as they loved their parents.
> Grant also suspected that was why even young children learned the names of dinosaurs. It never failed to amaze him when a three-year-old shrieked: '_Stegosaurus!_' Saying these complicated names was a way of exerting power over the giants, a way of being in control.


- Michael Crichton, _Jurassic Park_

Switch 'exerting power over parental authority' with something along the lines of 'familiarising with intimidating nature', and that'd be something like my take on it. For both dinosaurs and tarantulas: creatures bigger and presumably more dangerous than normally encountered in our usual modern, first-world situation, but by that token far removed from us, and given an air of the exotic or even semi-mythical because of it. We get to know more about them and the 'monstrous' impression gives way to to the view of fascinating, complex animals. We use their scientific names for identification first, but I think it comes easier because we love them!

About Poecilotheria - when I got into tarantula keeping it reminded me of the name Coelophysis (Seel-o-fie-sis) - sibilant c, 'oe' as phonetic i:, etc. But then I saw keepers referring to 'pokies', and that got stamped into my head. 

If they're not pokies anymore, are they peecies?



mconnachan said:


> One of my irks is when people say I'm away to "Hoover" umm don't you mean vacuum........


'Raptor' and 'Teerex' niggle me. The latter not so much because of the same identification problems as the OP*, but because 'Tyrannosaurus' rolls off the tongue so satisfyingly. Try it. Walk around today saying Tyrannosaurus. Tyrannosaurus. Tyrrrranosaurus. Ignore the funny looks.

* On that note, the usage of scientific binomials that I learned was to write the full name on it's first mention - e.g. _Avicularia minatrix_ - and then use the abbreviation - _A. minatrix_ - for the rest of the write-up. I figure it could sort out any lingering doubts in online forum topics, too.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Award 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 30, 2017)

Vermis said:


> For me I think it helped that I was interested in dinosaurs (andotherprehistoricanimals) and never grew out of it.
> 
> 
> - Michael Crichton, _Jurassic Park_
> ...


Absolutely awesome post, I enjoyed reading it 
I have been wondering the same about 'pokies'...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Leila (May 30, 2017)

"If they're not pokies anymore, are they peecies?"

 @Vermis, it would make more sense, but it sounds all wrong ...my brain is throwing a tantrum right now. Ha

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## JoshDM020 (May 30, 2017)

As a total newbie, only even here for a couple of months and had never even heard a tarantulas scientific name before joining, i have had no problem picking up new full names, the shortened versions (Avic. avic) or fun little nicknames (pokie). I understand why some people may have a problem with this, as learning styles differ greatly from person to person. I DONT understand why a war has initiated over it. Nobody is intentionally being disrespectful to anyone, here. I understand what @Trenor is getting at perfectly fine and hes really not all that wrong (why can we call an oak tree an oak tree, but cant call a rose hair a rose hair). Although i also understand how scientific names are more useful because ive gotten pictures of several different spiders when i type "brazilian giant white knee tarantula" looking for Acanthoscurria geniculata. It also makes sense that language barriers prevent some common names from being understood. But honestly, most o the people here who dont speak English as a first language have likely been here long enough to figure it out for themselves by now. There are a loooottttttt of smart people here. The point I'm getting at, different people have different outlooks based on what their experiences are and where theyre from. So lets all just chill out. Because theres nothing any of us can do to make anybody change what they do anyways. Call that rose hair whatever you want.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## Andrea82 (May 30, 2017)

JoshDM020 said:


> As a total newbie, only even here for a couple of months and had never even heard a tarantulas scientific name before joining, i have had no problem picking up new full names, the shortened versions (Avic. avic) or fun little nicknames (pokie). I understand why some people may have a problem with this, as learning styles differ greatly from person to person. I DONT understand why a war has initiated over it. Nobody is intentionally being disrespectful to anyone, here. I understand what @Trenor is getting at perfectly fine and hes really not all that wrong (why can we call an oak tree an oak tree, but cant call a rose hair a rose hair). Although i also understand how scientific names are more useful because ive gotten pictures of several different spiders when i type "brazilian giant white knee tarantula" looking for Acanthoscurria geniculata. It also makes sense that language barriers prevent some common names from being understood. But honestly, most o the people here who dont speak English as a first language have likely been here long enough to figure it out for themselves by now. There are a loooottttttt of smart people here. The point I'm getting at, different people have different outlooks based on what their experiences are and where theyre from. So lets all just chill out. Because theres nothing any of us can do to make anybody change what they do anyways. Call that rose hair whatever you want.


I don't see a war...discussion, yes. War? No.
I don't have 'to figure out common names' for myself because someone else doesn't know the scientific name, that's the world upside down. But it's simple though...want advice from Europeans? Use the scientific name.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## OliverWhatever (May 30, 2017)

I... I think I am just gonna continue mispronouncing these names...
I don't want to be that annoying smartass that always goes "_Actually,_ it's pronounced _pee-suh-luh-THI-ree-uh!_, the _oe_ is a Latin dipthong pronounced with a long "e" sound_"_
What about "Metallica"? Am I pronouncing that one wrong as well?
My world is falling apart...

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## JoshDM020 (May 30, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> I don't see a war...discussion, yes. War? No.
> I don't have 'to figure out common names' for myself because someone else doesn't know the scientific name, that's the world upside down. But it's simple though...want advice from Europeans? Use the scientific name.


Thats what im getting at and i mentioned that. Language barriers are a good reason to use scientific names. But if someone doesnt KNOW the scientific name, it wouldnt be difficult. Thats what i was meaning. And war was a little over-exaggerated. But it has gotten a tad bit heated a couple times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Vermis (May 30, 2017)

@Andrea82 @Leila 



JoshDM020 said:


> i have had no problem picking up new full names, the shortened versions (Avic. avic) or fun little nicknames (pokie)... I understand what @Trenor is getting at perfectly fine and hes really not all that wrong (why can we call an oak tree an oak tree, but cant call a rose hair a rose hair). Although i also understand how scientific names are more useful because ive gotten pictures of several different spiders when i type "brazilian giant white knee tarantula" looking for Acanthoscurria geniculata.


You have a point. I think the common name matter varies from species to species. It's easier when the common name unmistakably refers to a precise genus or species - using pokies again, that refers to the genus _Poecilotheria_, however much we've been mispronouncing it. 'Indian ornamental' refers to _Poecilotheria regalis_ as opposed to the other species in the genus. 'Avic' is also more defined and descriptive than the simple 'A' that Oliver complained about, at least until you become familiar with specific names. And it still wouldn't hurt to roll out the bit in italics, especially - as folk have said - when discussing things with non-native english speakers.

But on the other hand... well, there's an online article poking fun at 90s comic artist Rob Liefeld (I'd have to refresh my memory about AB's rules on linking to strong language, but it's easy enough to find), that describes his gritty-superhero naming convention: "couple a negatively connotative word (blood, die, death) with a second but completely unrelated negatively connotative word (shot, hard, blow)".
I think the same thing applies to too many new world tarantulas. Couple a colour or reference to fire (red, white, golden, fire, flame) with a reference to legs, backsides, or countries (leg, knee, rump, brazilian, chilean, mexican). Personally, I can't keep up. It's actually easier for me to remember the double-barrelled multisyllabic latinised names, not least because they provide a handy mental phylogenetic tree, like a set of mnemonic files and folders. Just to scratch the surface, _Acanthoscurria geniculata_ is in the same Theraphosinae subfamily, but a different genus than _Brachypelma smithi_ and _B. boehmi_; but is a brazilian white-knee closer to or further from a mexican red-knee than a mexican flame-leg?
Scientific names can be subject to some flux, but after a few years away from the hobby it hasn't been difficult to pick up on what happened to the likes of _Avicularia versicolor_ or _Cithariscius crawshayi. _In that time I haven't begun - or could be bothered - to decipher the entire muddle of colour-knees, whatsit-hairs, and thingummy-baboons.

Pokies yet again... I dunno if it'll ever fall out of favour as shorthand for _Poecilotheria_. I think at this point it's like T. rex (or... _choke_... T-rex) - it's derived from an abbreviation of the scientific name, but it's become a common name in it's own right.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2 | Love 4


----------



## JoshDM020 (May 30, 2017)

Vermis said:


> @Andrea82 @Leila
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. Sometimes the common name is spot on and could be acceptable, until you start crossing language barriers and suddenly the translations for words get weird. Somebody already mentioned that some words have multiple meanings and the words they use for one thing mean something completely in english. Thats kinda the point i was trying to really focus on. Pokie seems ok to me because everyone knows it. On this forum, i doubt someone would think you were talking about a cactus if you used it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2 | Funny 1


----------



## DubiaW (May 31, 2017)

The longer I pronounce a scientific name wrong the harder it is to correct it. There are a whole bunch of reptile names I have been pronouncing wrong for at least 25 years and I don't plan on correcting it. The _Poecilotheria_ thing has messed me all up, no need to drag old skeletons out of the closet like _Rhinocheilus lecontei _except to laugh at myself. It messes with the whole phonetic memorization process all over again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 2, 2017)

Hello everybody, I am new here so I hope it will be ok to join this interesting discussion: 



DubiaW said:


> Here is a link to a site that tells you how to pronounce the the names of arachnids. Now we can correct everyone in the trade! Bwah ha ha!
> 
> http://www.atshq.org/articles/beechwp1.html


There are many ways to pronounciate latin, but the one in this link has nothing to do with latin at all ... 



Andrea82 said:


> @Leila @D Sherlod
> For help with pronunciation, petkokc ( The Dark Den) has a series on them:


Really nice video, his pronunciation is almost perfect . 

It would be possible to talk (or argue ? ) about latin for very long time, so there is just one thing for english speaking colleagues to think about today. In latin there is the same sound for ch as in greek for x (chi), it is sound of spanich j or german ch. So lets now try chalcodes or Chromatopelma with that. 
Have a nice day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 2, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> Hello everybody, I am new here so I hope it will be ok to join this interesting discussion:
> 
> 
> There are many ways to pronounciate latin, but the one in this link has nothing to do with latin at all ...
> ...


 careful man, you'll break English speaking peoples' tongues and throats.....
As a Dutch person, no trouble at all 
Edit: realized mentioning US only wasn't very nice of me so changed to English

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1 | Clarification Please 1


----------



## Leila (Jun 2, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> Hello everybody, I am new here so I hope it will be ok to join this interesting discussion:
> 
> 
> There are many ways to pronounciate latin, but the one in this link has nothing to do with latin at all ...
> ...


Spanich? Lol. Jk jk, I know that is a typo. 

I do not mean this to be rude at all, but your suggestions for pronunciation comparisons at the end of your comment make zero sense to me.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 3, 2017)

Leila said:


> Spanich? Lol. Jk jk, I know that is a typo.
> 
> I do not mean this to be rude at all, but your suggestions for pronunciation comparisons at the end of your comment make zero sense to me.


The 'ch' in Chromatopelma is pronounced 'k' in English. But the original pronunciation is different and a sound English (or French) people cannot easily produce. There is no equivalent to it in English. It sounds a little like the Mexican j in 'jalapeno'.

This is why I posted about breaking tongues and throats of you people

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 3, 2017)

Leila said:


> Spanich? Lol. Jk jk, I know that is a typo.
> 
> I do not mean this to be rude at all, but your suggestions for pronunciation comparisons at the end of your comment make zero sense to me.


My fault, too many ch in one sentence .
I am sorry for that comparisons, as that sound does not exist in english, I did not get better idea how to describe it . But as long as You would read it as k and not as /ch/ in "chat" or "choice", it is ok . 



DubiaW said:


> That nickname has been has been killing me too. But what if I told you that "oe" is a Latin dipthong pronounced with a long "e" sound? Yeah, I know. How Pedantic. As in the word Foetus or amoeba.


Yes, oe (same as ae) changes to long /eː/, but it should be more "bear" or "fair" sound, not "weed" sound .


----------



## Vermis (Jun 3, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> The 'ch' in Chromatopelma is pronounced 'k' in English. But the original pronunciation is different and a sound English (or French) people cannot easily produce. There is no equivalent to it in English. It sounds a little like the Mexican j in 'jalapeno'.


Might depend on how you pronounce lough/loch.


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 3, 2017)

Vermis said:


> Might depend on how you pronounce lough/loch.


That still doesn't sound like the 'ch' pronounced in original way. 
The 'gh' is the sound of 'f'. 'laughing' sounds like 'lehfing' in US, and laowfing in UK. 
Sigh...very hard to get a point across when missing the vocabulary....

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Leila (Jun 3, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> That still doesn't sound like the 'ch' pronounced in original way.
> The 'gh' is the sound of 'f'. 'laughing' sounds like 'lehfing' in US, and laowfing in UK.
> Sigh...very hard to get a point across when missing the vocabulary....


...and this is what happens when you get a bunch of smart people together in the same room...

Reactions: Funny 2 | Love 2


----------



## DubiaW (Jun 3, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> Yes, oe (same as ae) changes to long /eː/, but it should be more "bear" or "fair" sound, not "weed" sound .



I have been pronouncing "_ae"_ like it is in "bear" but from what I am reading on scientific name pronunciation sites it should actually be "ee." From my fading memories of being "corrected" at university that is the case, "ee" is correct. I'm guilty of messing that one up too. As far as "_oe_" it is pretty unanimous that it is pronounced "ee" as in foetus or amoeba. The modern american english spelling in the word foetus has actually been changed to "fetus" to sooth our lazy tongues, where amoeba remains traditional. Unfortunately there are modern adaptations to the pronunciation of latin which change with time, which defeats the entire purpose of using a dead language for a universal naming system. An example that is pretty common is the name _Aloë_. The "ë" indicates that the "oe" is not a dipthong and the vowels should be pronounced separately "ah-lo-uh" but it is accepted to pronounce it "ah-loh" just because....well, it is hard to change something that has the exact same spelling but a different pronunciation in the mother tongue. Scientific sites are telling me that "aë" is the equivalent of "æ," indicating the absence of a dipthong and the pronuciation "A-uh" but Latin poetry sites are saying the exact opposite. Call it poetic licence.

I've been doing a lot of homework on the subject this week out of curiosity and the desire to be correct. It feels so pompous, but using Latin names earns that moniker by default in most circles, so if pronouncing Latin correctly makes me pompous I'm just going to own that "pompous ass hat" award with pride. After all "smart ass" is just an insult the uneducated placate themselves with. Pompous ass hat trophy please. I've earned it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Award 1


----------



## Vermis (Jun 3, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> The 'gh' is the sound of 'f'. 'laughing' sounds like 'lehfing' in US, and laowfing in UK.
> Sigh...very hard to get a point across when missing the vocabulary....


Nope. The gh/ch in lough/loch is a throaty, rasping 'kh' sound of celtic origin, similar to germanic (e.g. Bach) and arabic pronunciations. It's not pronounced in the same way as 'laugh', 'tough' or even 'Loughborough'*. Living in the middle of Northern Ireland, I'd notice if it was supposed to be pronounced 'Luff Neagh'. 

In fact it sounds throatier than I've heard even mexicans pronounce 'jalapeño', which doesn't sound too different from a standard 'ha', to my ears. Maybe has a bit more push to it. I assumed the latin pronunciation of 'ch' was more like 'kh' given Patherophis' example of a 'german ch', but 'spanish j' isn't clearing enough phlegm for my liking. 

*Funny thing is, I found two pronunciation guides for Loughborough on youtube. One went with 'Lockborough'; the other 'Louwborough'...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 3, 2017)

Vermis said:


> Nope. The gh/ch in lough/loch is a throaty, rasping 'kh' sound of celtic origin, similar to germanic (e.g. Bach) and arabic pronunciations. It's not pronounced in the same way as 'laugh', 'tough' or even 'Loughborough'*. Living in the middle of Northern Ireland, I'd notice if it was supposed to be pronounced 'Luff Neagh'.
> 
> In fact it sounds throatier than I've heard even mexicans pronounce 'jalapeño', which doesn't sound too different from a standard 'ha', to my ears. Maybe has a bit more push to it. I assumed the latin pronunciation of 'ch' was more like 'kh' given Patherophis' example of a 'german ch', but 'spanish j' isn't clearing enough phlegm for my liking.
> 
> *Funny thing is, I found two pronunciation guides for Loughborough on youtube. One went with 'Lockborough'; the other 'Louwborugh'...


Ah, didn't catch you were Irish...in that case, yes. Irish 'gh' sure sounds like the 'ch' sounds! Hell, that sounds more throaty than I could ever achieve speaking only Dutch

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 3, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> I have been pronouncing "_ae"_ like it is in "bear" but from what I am reading on scientific name pronunciation sites it should actually be "ee." From my fading memories of being "corrected" at university that is the case, "ee" is correct. I'm guilty of messing that one up too. As far as "_oe_" it is pretty unanimous that it is pronounced "ee" as in foetus or amoeba. The modern american english spelling in the word foetus has actually been changed to "fetus" to sooth our lazy tongues, where amoeba remains traditional. Unfortunately there are modern adaptations to the pronunciation of latin which change with time, which defeats the entire purpose of using a dead language for a universal naming system. An example that is pretty common is the name _Aloë_. The "ë" indicates that the "oe" is not a dipthong and the vowels should be pronounced separately "ah-lo-uh" but it is accepted to pronounce it "ah-loh" just because....well, it is hard to change something that has the exact same spelling but a different pronunciation in the mother tongue. Scientific sites are telling me that "aë" is the equivalent of "æ," indicating the absence of a dipthong and the pronuciation "A-uh" but Latin poetry sites are saying the exact opposite. Call it poetic licence.
> 
> I've been doing a lot of homework on the subject this week out of curiosity and the desire to be correct. It feels so pompous, but using Latin names earns that moniker by default in most circles, so if pronouncing Latin correctly makes me pompous I'm just going to own that "pompous ass hat" award with pride. After all "smart ass" is just an insult the uneducated placate themselves with. Pompous ass hat trophy please. I've earned it.


The main problem is probably that there are not general internationally accepted rules for new Latin pronunciation. This table illustrates the mess perfectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation. So basically, what English authorities say is “right”, rest of world can consider insane and not Latin… I have personally big reservations to English way as it is probably most differentiated from late classical Latin and, mainly because of tendency to shift vowels, it is almost impossible to understand it and guess spelling from it. 

As I am Latin enthusiast and have to cope with this a lot during study, You got my respect sir.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Love 1


----------



## DubiaW (Jun 3, 2017)

The Europeans I have known had to take Latin in secondary school. The Latin joke in the Harry Potter movie series is completely lost on most of the American audience. "It's Le-vi-o-sah not Levi-osuh!" It is actually a stab at Latin lessons. 



Patherophis said:


> So basically, what English authorities say is “right”, rest of world can consider insane and not Latin… I have personally big reservations to English way as it is probably most differentiated from late classical Latin and, mainly because of tendency to shift vowels, it is almost impossible to understand it and guess spelling from it.


Totally agree! It should just be Latin. The whole system was supposed to prevent arbitrary naming. You should have seen the look on my face when I found out there was such thing as Ecclesiastical, Classical and Reformed Classical Latin. Which one?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DubiaW (Jun 3, 2017)

Vermis said:


> Nope. The gh/ch in lough/loch is a throaty, rasping 'kh' sound of celtic origin, similar to germanic (e.g. Bach) and arabic pronunciations. It's not pronounced in the same way as 'laugh', 'tough' or even 'Loughborough'*. Living in the middle of Northern Ireland, I'd notice if it was supposed to be pronounced 'Luff Neagh'.
> 
> In fact it sounds throatier than I've heard even mexicans pronounce 'jalapeño', which doesn't sound too different from a standard 'ha', to my ears. Maybe has a bit more push to it. I assumed the latin pronunciation of 'ch' was more like 'kh' given Patherophis' example of a 'german ch', but 'spanish j' isn't clearing enough phlegm for my liking.
> 
> *Funny thing is, I found two pronunciation guides for Loughborough on youtube. One went with 'Lockborough'; the other 'Louwborough'...


Loaghtan sheep (Locktan). I only had prior knowledge of the pronunciation of "gh" because it's my favorite sheep. What? Doesn't everyone have a favorite sheep?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ellenantula (Jun 3, 2017)

I'm not sure when Latin was removed from the public school system in the US.  Might even have just been a regional thing and is still taught in some areas.  I do know it was a normal part of my grandmother's high school curriculum (she was born in 1901).  I can still recall being amazed she had studied Latin (she never went to college but she did finish high school and was proud of that).  Both my parents remember it being offered in high school, but it was just an elective course.
I never studied Latin in high school or college (never even considered it) but wish I had now.


----------



## keks (Jun 3, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Loaghtan sheep (Locktan). I only had prior knowledge of the pronunciation of "gh" because it's my favorite sheep. What? Doesn't everyone have a favorite sheep?


Very nice sheep, my favorite sheep is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walliser_Schwarznasenschaf  ^^.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DubiaW (Jun 3, 2017)

keks said:


> Very nice sheep, my favorite sheep is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walliser_Schwarznasenschaf  ^^.


Very cool

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Vermis (Jun 4, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> What? Doesn't everyone have a favorite sheep?


Jacob sheep.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_(sheep)

Some of my brother in law's family breed 'em.
I'm also fond of swaledales, blue texels, and rouge de l'ouest.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 4, 2017)

Vermis said:


> Jacob sheep.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_(sheep)
> 
> ...


Are those 'texels' from the isle of Texel in the Netherlands?


----------



## boina (Jun 4, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> The main problem is probably that there are not general internationally accepted rules for new Latin pronunciation. This table illustrates the mess perfectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation. So basically, what English authorities say is “right”, rest of world can consider insane and not Latin… I have personally big reservations to English way as it is probably most differentiated from late classical Latin and, mainly because of tendency to shift vowels, it is almost impossible to understand it and guess spelling from it.
> 
> As I am Latin enthusiast and have to cope with this a lot during study, You got my respect sir.


Yes! Finally someone who understands it. I agree, what English speaking people consider "proper" pronunciation of Latin is anglizised, and in many case to an extend that makes it practically impossible to understand if you are not a native English speaker.

And btw, as someone who has ae, oe, and ue sounds in her native language: Originally they all sound different and certainly not 'ee', but since they do not have an English equivalent it's hard to describe. No German would ever think of pronuncing pee-ceelo-theria and they don't understand you if you try, no matter how officially right it is in English. In German it's poe-tsee-lo-teria. (Btw., the 'th' sound does not exist in Latin and is always pronounced 't'). And it's not Pokies, either, but Poetsies . 

Anyone not confused yet?

(From a completely different science: I've dabbled a bit in painting and I've spent weeks wondering what Americans meant when they were talking of 'Tishen'. I finally figured out they meant Tizian...)

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## boina (Jun 4, 2017)

Oh, and my favorite sheep is the northern German Deichschaf of course http://hoesti.de/neu/hoestis-arbeiten/cartoons/voll-schaf/

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Vermis (Jun 4, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> This table illustrates the mess perfectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation. So basically, what English authorities say is “right”, rest of world can consider insane and not Latin…


Judging by that table, you can get rid of anglicised latin, and then everyone else's latin - down to anyone not from your home country or alumnus - will be insane!



Andrea82 said:


> Are those 'texels' from the isle of Texel in the Netherlands?


Blue texels, search search, click click... yes!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 4, 2017)

Vermis said:


> Judging by that table, you can get rid of anglicised latin, and then everyone else's latin - down to anyone not from your home country or alumnus - will be insane!


I accept that there are regional differences and don’t want to force my way to anybody, but English way is far from all others. 
The way I prefer is not my country’s way, it is used in big part of Europe by people of very different languages, and I have nothing against e.g. Italian way as it is quite well understandable. 

Edit: I erased that sentence, it really was a bit rude and unfair generalization.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Leila (Jun 4, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> I accept that there are regional differences and don’t want to force my way to anybody, but English way is far from all others. Don’t take this offensive, but it often seems like that when it comes to Latin, Greek or foreign words in general, most people around the world are trying their best while majority of English speakers just don’t care.
> The way I prefer is not my country’s way, it is used in big part of Europe by people of very different languages, and I have nothing against e.g. Italian way as it is quite well understandable.


I could be pedantic in regards to your formation of sentences in the English language. Is its structure loose due to the fact that you do not care?? 

Alas, I digress.  (Honestly, I just wanted to jump in the conversation. I am truly not picking a fight.  Haha.)

Everyone, put away the verbal weapons. Simmer down. I come in peace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## darkness975 (Jun 4, 2017)

I'm American but I speak three languages fluently. So I guess I fall into the exception category.

Reactions: Like 2 | Lollipop 1


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 4, 2017)

Leila said:


> I could be pedantic in regards to your formation of sentences in the English language. Is its structure loose due to the fact that you do not care??
> 
> Alas, I digress.  (Honestly, I just wanted to jump in the conversation. I am truly not picking a fight.  Haha.)
> 
> Everyone, put away the verbal weapons. Simmer down. I come in peace.


I am sorry about my structure, I know sometimes it is terrible.  We tend have a problem with it here because of mother language structure, but that does not excuse me. It is probably the most common problem our correctors have to deal with.


----------



## DubiaW (Jun 4, 2017)

Ah so. Deutschlanders are some of the most the most avid people about doing things the correct way. I appreciate the info. I spent summer 97 over there travelling around but most of my time was spent in the Bielefeld area in Blomberg, Detmold and Herford. I learned a little bit of Deutsch over there but I have forgotten most of it. Does the Latin "c" have the same "ts" pronunciation as "z" does in Deutsch? In one Latin verbal translator Poecilotheria the "oe" had near the same pronunciation as the English word "whey" or sounded out "üe". So now I am confused a little. That pretty much settles it, I just need to take a classic Latin course.

I do remember a few phrases in Deutsch. For example: "Auch boina muß mal scheiße." 



boina said:


> Yes! Finally someone who understands it. I agree, what English speaking people consider "proper" pronunciation of Latin is anglizised, and in many case to an extend that makes it practically impossible to understand if you are not a native English speaker.
> 
> And btw, as someone who has ae, oe, and ue sounds in her native language: Originally they all sound different and certainly not 'ee', but since they do not have an English equivalent it's hard to describe. No German would ever think of pronuncing pee-ceelo-theria and they don't understand you if you try, no matter how officially right it is in English. In German it's poe-tsee-lo-teria. (Btw., the 'th' sound does not exist in Latin and is always pronounced 't'). And it's not Pokies, either, but Poetsies .
> 
> ...


----------



## Leila (Jun 4, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> I am sorry about my structure, I know sometimes it is terrible.  We tend have a problem with it here because of mother language structure, but that does not excuse me. It is probably the most common problem our correctors have to deal with.


No need to apologize, love. I was only being a little playful. Plus, your sentence structure is superior to some of the American born members'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## boina (Jun 4, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Ah so. Deutschlanders are some of the most the most avid people about doing things the correct way. I appreciate the info. I spent summer 97 over there travelling around but most of my time was spent in the Bielefeld area in Blomberg, Detmold and Herford. I learned a little bit of Deutsch over there but I have forgotten most of it. Does the Latin "c" have the same "ts" pronunciation as "z" does in Deutsch? In one Latin verbal translator Poecilotheria the "oe" had near the same pronunciation as the English word "whey" or sounded out "üe". So now I am confused a little. That pretty much settles it, I just need to take a classic Latin course.


Actually I didn't mean to say Germans pronounce it the correct way, just that they do it differently - as does practically everyone else.

For a while the "ts" sound was considered correct for a Latin "c" if it's in front of e or i,but I think by now Latin "c" should be pronounced "k" in all cases - which Germans don't do, so they do it wrong. The classical pronunciation would probably be something like poekeelo-teyria, so 'Pokie" is not bad, actually .



DubiaW said:


> For example: "Auch boina muß mal ...


You are not allowed to use those words around here . You only get away with it because not many people around here will know what it means ...

Reactions: Funny 2 | Love 1


----------



## Leila (Jun 4, 2017)

boina said:


> You are not allowed to use those words around here . You only get away with it because not many people around here will know what it means ...


 Oh, come on, boina! What does it mean????

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## darkness975 (Jun 4, 2017)

DubiaW said:


> Ah so. Deutschlanders are some of the most the most avid people about doing things the correct way. I appreciate the info. I spent summer 97 over there travelling around but most of my time was spent in the Bielefeld area in Blomberg, Detmold and Herford. I learned a little bit of Deutsch over there but I have forgotten most of it. Does the Latin "c" have the same "ts" pronunciation as "z" does in Deutsch? In one Latin verbal translator Poecilotheria the "oe" had near the same pronunciation as the English word "whey" or sounded out "üe". So now I am confused a little. That pretty much settles it, I just need to take a classic Latin course.
> 
> I do remember a few phrases in Deutsch. For example: "Auch boina muß mal scheiße."





boina said:


> Actually I didn't mean to say Germans pronounce it the correct way, just that they do it differently - as does practically everyone else.
> 
> For a while the "ts" sound was considered correct for a Latin "c" if it's in front of e or i,but I think by now Latin "c" should be pronounced "k" in all cases - which Germans don't do, so they do it wrong. The classical pronunciation would probably be something like poekeelo-teyria, so 'Pokie" is not bad, actually .
> 
> ...




Ich habe alles verstanden.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## darkness975 (Jun 4, 2017)

Leila said:


> Oh, come on, boina! What does it mean????


I'll text you what it means, check your phone.


@OliverWhatever I talk about the different species enough to know what most of them are even if they are written incorrectly.  Even the ones I don't talk about a lot I can usually figure out what people mean. The more you talk about them and deal with the names the more you become familiar with them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DubiaW (Jun 5, 2017)

boina said:


> You are not allowed to use those words around here . You only get away with it because not many people around here will know what it means ...


Thought that was a clinical term in Deutsch.  Heard it on the radio and TV a lot over there, even in a graduation speech. Seemed to have a similar connotation but a different stigma. Pringle's commercials were rather entertaining, "Once you pop. You can't stop." has a completely different meaning in Deutsch.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## OliverWhatever (Jun 6, 2017)

Glad this thread sparked so much fun debate rather than 3 comments shortly answering the poorly phrased original post 
Tho I _am_ slightly mad that my worldview has been slightly shattered regarding tarantula names, so... thanks for that, I guess...


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

I use them as long as I know them, then always use the scientific name, it becomes ingrained the more you use it, I'm not an expert by any means but I remember the ones I like....lol

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> The 'ch' in Chromatopelma is pronounced 'k' in English. But the original pronunciation is different and a sound English (or French) people cannot easily produce. There is no equivalent to it in English. It sounds a little like the Mexican j in 'jalapeno'


I've heard people saying Petsiloterya, for Poecilotheria, remembering it's Latin, so who's right and who's wrong, no - one, if you  say it and it's understood then all's well, like Chilobrachys, ch is k.


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Vermis said:


> *Funny thing is, I found two pronunciation guides for Loughborough on youtube. One went with 'Lockborough'; the other 'Louwborough'


I'm Scottish and would pronounce Loughborourgh as _Lufbura,(phonetic) _and loch as _lochh _with lots of phlegm at the end.


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 6, 2017)

mconnachan said:


> I've heard people saying Petsiloterya, for Poecilotheria, remembering it's Latin, so who's right and who's wrong, no - one, if you  say it and it's understood then all's well, like Chilobrachys, ch is k.


Well...no, actually. At least not here in the Netherlands. Ch is pronounced like your 'ch' from loch, not 'k'.

Reactions: Like 1 | Clarification Please 1


----------



## keks (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Well...no, actually. At least not here in the Netherlands. Ch is pronounced like your 'ch' from loch, not 'k'.


In German it is pronounced as "k" ^^ .


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Well...no, actually. At least not here in the Netherlands. Ch is pronounced like your 'ch' from loch, not 'k'.


That's exactly what I have said the "ch" is pronounced "k", easy as pie. A loch is pronounced lock but with a grammatical "k" at the end, as in Loch Ness. Not Lo"CH" as in cheese.


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

mconnachan said:


> That's exactly what I have said the "ch" is pronounced "k", easy as pie. A loch is pronounced lock but with a grammatical "k" at the end, as in Loch Ness. Not Lo"CH" as in cheese.


[EDIT] 'kee'lo'brak'a' sorry for that.


----------



## keks (Jun 6, 2017)

I love this thread !!


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 6, 2017)

mconnachan said:


> That's exactly what I have said the "ch" is pronounced "k", easy as pie. A loch is pronounced lock but with a grammatical "k" at the end, as in Loch Ness. Not Lo"CH" as in cheese.


But ..you said with a lot of phlegm...which wouldn't make it a 'k' sound. 
This is getting confusing....I already checked on the Dutch Facebook page but apparently someone is hacking that page. Or my Facebook....
I'll try to find a YouTube video with the 'ch' in it that I am talking about....


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 6, 2017)

Found it. Don't mind the over-enthusiastic girl

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 6, 2017)

mconnachan said:


> So kee'lee'o'brak'a'


Ok, I appreciate first "i" staying ee and not /ai/, I am a bit confused about how did "ys" chanche into a, but I am totally lost in where the hell did the second ee appear from.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 6, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> Ok, I appreciate first "i" staying ee and not /ai/, I am a bit confused about how did "ys" chanche into a, but I am totally lost in where the hell did the second ee appear from.


Same here. In Dutch it is 'G'ee loo bra 'g' ees. A
With de 'g' being the sound of the vid above.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Same here. In Dutch it is 'G'ee loo bra 'g' ees. A
> With de 'g' being the sound of the vid above.


Lost in translation I'm afraid, we obviously say it differently, "ch" as in choir - a group of people singing. That's all my input, as again we'll get lost in translation and it's not worth the confusion, we all know what we mean, as long as we spell correctly we'll know what sp. or genera we're discussing. Yeah fair enough.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> where the hell did the second ee appear from.


Sorry your right I got a bit carried away, just one "ee" as in Chilobrachys. Iwas saying chil"i"obrachys rather than Chilobrachys. Yes that's definitive now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> But ..you said with a lot of phlegm...which wouldn't make it a 'k' sound.
> This is getting confusing....I already checked on the Dutch Facebook page but apparently someone is hacking that page. Or my Facebook....
> I'll try to find a YouTube video with the 'ch' in it that I am talking about....


Yeah that's what I said @Andrea82 Loch Lomond, Loch Ness, etc.


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> In Dutch it is 'G'ee loo bra 'g' ees. A
> With de 'g' being the sound of the vid above.


We pronounce it exactly the same here

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> We pronounce it exactly the same here


WooHoo! we agreed eventually, as I said lost in translation, nearly.


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 6, 2017)

three pages later....? 'hey, what do you know, we're actually all on the same page here!!!!'

You guys are awesome!
I got a page linked to me that can be useful,;
http://atshq.org/articles/beechwp1.html

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## mconnachan (Jun 6, 2017)

Leila said:


> Oh, come on, boina! What does it mean????


Mistake sorry.


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> three pages later....? 'hey, what do you know, we're actually all on the same page here!!!!'
> 
> You guys are awesome!
> I got a page linked to me that can be useful,;
> http://atshq.org/articles/beechwp1.html


God, not this link again, I will have nightmares about it.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Andrea82 (Jun 6, 2017)

Patherophis said:


> God, not this link again, I will have nightmares about it.


that bad huh?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Patherophis (Jun 6, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> that bad huh?


Yes, I really do not like anglicized Latin, but it is just my opinion, everyone can pronouce how they (or their region) like

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Vermis (Jun 11, 2017)

On the theme of 'divided by a common language', I'm beginning to see the OP's point of view. Difficult as it may be to become used to scientific binomials, they are meant to be a universal, uniting system. I have the feeling that, in some small way, permanent contraction of the generic name takes it in the opposite direction. It's like an extra barrier to pierce, an extra list to memorise to ensure your admittance into 'the club'. More problematic with rare, new, or "sp. 'englishword'" species.
An example I ran into earlier (like a wall ): P. sp. 'lowland' and P. sp. 'rufus'. I hadn't heard of them before. What's P. sp. 'lowland'? Poecilotheria? Pterinochilus? Pamphobeteus? Psalmopoeus? Phormingochilus? Pelinobius? Etc. etc. Even for someone familiar with those genera, 'P' doesn't describe or place the species, beyond an assumption that it's some member of theraphosidae. (I could be reasonably sure it's not Passer or Pleuronectes or Pantholops) Rinse and repeat with P. sp. 'rufus'...
Pics were posted, and were useful to me, being fairly familiar with Poecilotheria and Pterinochilus. (For it was they) But without them, _common_ names - maybe 'lowland ornamental' and 'rufus starburst baboon' - would have been the next best clue to identification! Mostly for the simple reason that they would probably have been typed out in full. (Sorry to that poster, don't mean to pick on you, but it's the most notable example I've seen recently)

I don't know if googling is an ideal solution. It's an option, but like permanent contraction, it kinda misses the point of binomials. An organism's scientific name has two parts for a reason. The generic name's there to be used, to help form an idea of the species according to it's phylogeny and closest relatives, before the specific name pins it down.
It's not like I'd be constantly forgetting names and wandering in a mist if people don't type out generic names every single time (that's not what I'm ranting about anyway) or that it makes things impossible to learn for newbies; but for the sake of a second or two of extra tapping, a generic name could hardly make things _less_ clear! I mean, we ain't texting. We're on a discussion forum. (And one where folk often take a lot of time to type out, ah, 'vigorous discussions'. Like this one. )

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## boina (Jun 12, 2017)

Vermis said:


> On the theme of 'divided by a common language', I'm beginning to see the OP's point of view. Difficult as it may be to become used to scientific binomials, they are meant to be a universal, uniting system. I have the feeling that, in some small way, permanent contraction of the generic name takes it in the opposite direction. It's like an extra barrier to pierce, an extra list to memorise to ensure your admittance into 'the club'. More problematic with rare, new, or "sp. 'englishword'" species.
> An example I ran into earlier (like a wall ): P. sp. 'lowland' and P. sp. 'rufus'. I hadn't heard of them before. What's P. sp. 'lowland'? Poecilotheria? Pterinochilus? Pamphobeteus? Psalmopoeus? Phormingochilus? Pelinobius? Etc. etc. Even for someone familiar with those genera, 'P' doesn't describe or place the species, beyond an assumption that it's some member of theraphosidae. (I could be reasonably sure it's not Passer or Pleuronectes or Pantholops) Rinse and repeat with P. sp. 'rufus'...
> Pics were posted, and were useful to me, being fairly familiar with Poecilotheria and Pterinochilus. (For it was they) But without them, _common_ names - maybe 'lowland ornamental' and 'rufus starburst baboon' - would have been the next best clue to identification! Mostly for the simple reason that they would probably have been typed out in full. (Sorry to that poster, don't mean to pick on you, but it's the most notable example I've seen recently)
> 
> ...


The P. sp. rufus is actually a Phormingochilus, not Pterinochilus... 

But of course, this correction is only adding to the original point of your post. I promise to do better next time .


----------



## Trenor (Jun 12, 2017)

Vermis said:


> P. sp. 'lowland' and P. sp. 'rufus'.


In one of those cases (P. sp. 'lowland') isn't a correct name for that species. It's a P.subfusca but since the highland form looks so different than the lowland people tack on the lowland/highland on the end of the actual name. What they should type is P.subfusca 'Lowland' or P.subfusca 'Highland' and the sp. shouldn't come into play in that case.

The other case, as I understand it, (P. sp. 'rufus') points to Phormingochilus sp. rufus which has not been officially described in the World Spider Catalog. So it gets it's genus name Phormingochilus (that they guess it belongs to) and a temp species name denoted by sp. 'X' naming usually having something to do with the location it was found but can be anything. Once it gets described it'll have a more standard name. This can get confusing when along with this sp. 'X' temp name sometimes the hobby people will tag on a hobby name as well. Such as Hapalopus sp. Colombia Large and Hapalopus sp. Colombia Small. It is also my understanding that the full genus name should always be used when the tarantula has the sp. 'X' in it's species name. Though most of times we don't.

It can be pretty tricky at times to figure out what someone is talking about based on how they type a name. It can also be confusing if you only go to the google search and jump from that right into the images. That's because google will group lots of tarantulas that are not the same in their image search because like looking images have a great search weight than name text (in the image search). It's always better to do the text search and when you have a better idea of what T your dealing with then go to the image search to see what it looks like. At least that works the best for me.

I do agree with you that typing out the full name (Poecilotheria subfusca 'Lowland') at least once in the post before using the shorthand (P.subfusca 'Lowland') for the rest of the post, when talking about the same tarantula, would make it a lot more clear which tarantula the poster was talking about. I will be the 1st to admit I almost never do this.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## boina (Jun 12, 2017)

Trenor said:


> In one of those cases (P. sp. 'lowland') isn't a correct name for that species. It's a P.subfusca but since the highland form looks so different than the lowland people tack on the lowland/highland on the end of the actual name. What they should type is P.subfusca 'Lowland' or P.subfusca 'Highland' and the sp. shouldn't come into play in that case.


You can discuss that with all the German tarantula enthusiasts, and I guess even some (German) scientists. They vehemently insist that "lowland" and "highland" are two different species and "lowland" is NOT a subfusca and they get very indignant when you say otherwise. That's why I've been using the sp. "lowland".

I've no opinion on this, though, I think both positions are equally well supported/unsupported, so I'm not getting into a fight with you about this . If you insist it's a subfusca, I'm fine with that.


----------



## Trenor (Jun 12, 2017)

boina said:


> You can discuss that with all the German tarantula enthusiasts, and I guess even some (German) scientists. They vehemently insist that "lowland" and "highland" are two different species and "lowland" is NOT a subfusca and they get very indignant when you say otherwise. That's why I've been using the sp. "lowland".
> 
> I've no opinion on this, though, I think both positions are equally well supported/unsupported, so I'm not getting into a fight with you about this . If you insist it's a subfusca, I'm fine with that.


I've got no stake in the naming argument for this species when dealing with naming conventions. I usually go with what they have officially described in the World Spider Catalog. If I remember right they used to have them listed by two names. P.subfusca and P.bara and due to a taxonomy change the two were shown to be the same species and P.bara was merged into P.subfusca. People still wanted to keep the two color forms separate so they added the "Highland" and "Lowland" to the end. So, if they do split these back up they would likely call the lowlands P.bara since that was the scientific name it had before the merge. I've not seen anyone using just P. sp. "lowland" so that may be a EU breeder thing.. or maybe I just haven't seen it. 

If the scientists/taxonomists felt strongly enough about them being two different species they could do their own classifying study and present evidence that key taxonomy features were different. That would warrant them being separated again. The biggest thing I have heard on differences has been the color patterns though I haven't looked much into the topic so there might be something else I'm unaware of. In the meantime, I have no plans to breed one color form to the other (regardless of the merger) just like I would not be inclined to breed some of the NA species that have different color patterns depending on where they were collected.

I don't really have a stake in that argument either way. I just go by the classifications in the WSC as that is the most definitive, up to date resource I have. I am fond of my P.subfusca 'Lowland'/P.bara/P. sp. "lowland" though. The contrasting color pattern is pretty awesome.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ungoliant (Jun 12, 2017)

Trenor said:


> In one of those cases (P. sp. 'lowland') isn't a correct name for that species. It's a P.subfusca


I hate to be "that person," but the correct abbreviation of _Poecilotheria subfusca_ is actually _P. subfusca_, with a space after the period and the species name in lower-case. As with full binomials, the abbreviation should be in a different font style as well (e.g., italics). 




Vermis said:


> An example I ran into earlier (like a wall ): P. sp. 'lowland' and P. sp. 'rufus'. I hadn't heard of them before. What's P. sp. 'lowland'? Poecilotheria? Pterinochilus? Pamphobeteus? Psalmopoeus? Phormingochilus? Pelinobius? Etc. etc. Even for someone familiar with those genera, 'P' doesn't describe or place the species, beyond an assumption that it's some member of theraphosidae. (I could be reasonably sure it's not Passer or Pleuronectes or Pantholops) Rinse and repeat with P. sp. 'rufus'...


Scientists have evidently recognized the same potential for confusion/ambiguity, as the genus name is normally written in full. (The "G. species" abbreviation can be used afterwards if you are repeatedly mentioning the same species or if you are mentioning multiple species of the same genus.)

Granted, we may not hold forum writing to the same rigorous standards as scientific writing, but when abbreviating scientific names, we should at least stick to the standard form instead of making up our own abbreviations that undermine the whole point of using scientific names (to avoid ambiguity and to help break down language barriers).

If you're a lazy typist, consider adding some of your favorite nonstandard abbreviations to auto-correct in Word. For example, all I have to type is "P cambr" to get _Psalmopoeus cambridgei_.


----------



## Trenor (Jun 12, 2017)

Trenor said:


> In one of those cases (P. sp. 'lowland') isn't a correct name for that species. It's a P.subfusca





Ungoliant said:


> I hate to be "that person," but the correct abbreviation of _Poecilotheria subfusca_ is actually _P. subfusca_, with a space after the period and the species name in lower-case. As with full binomials, the abbreviation should be in a different font style as well (e.g., italics).


No worries. You are right that is the way it should be written.  Hardly anyone one here uses the italics and some (like me) usually drops the space (as I am often lazy).  The point I was making is there isn't a sp. in there since it is a officially described species. It is my understanding that only tarantula names that have not been officially described have the sp. in their names. I could be wrong though and maybe someone could correct me if I am.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Trenor (Jun 12, 2017)

Ungoliant said:


> If you're a lazy typist, consider adding some of your favorite nonstandard abbreviations to auto-correct in Word. For example, all I have to type is "P cambr" to get _Psalmopoeus cambridgei_.


This is me at times especially on my phone where I don't have word and I'm just quick typing.


----------



## boina (Jun 13, 2017)

Trenor said:


> The point I was making is there isn't a sp. in there since it is a officially described species. It is my understanding that only tarantula names that have not been officially described have the sp. in their names. I could be wrong though and maybe someone could correct me if I am.


Well, not exactly. The sp. simply means the species in that specific case is not known. It's not part of any name or anything. You can pick up a tarantula in Texas and state with certainty it is an Aphonopelma sp., because you don't know what species it is, even if it turns out to be a hentzi. Aphonopelma spp. is plural:  you are talking about more than one Aphonopelma species. 

This is the reasoning behind the use of Poecilotheria sp. "lowland" in Europe - it only means Poecilotheria (whatever species it may be, I don't know) "lowland". Since the people in Germany consider the case about the lowland variant being a subfusca not settled they decided to prefer the sp. - meaning 'I don't know what species it is' and not 'it is undescribed'.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Trenor (Jun 13, 2017)

boina said:


> Well, not exactly. The sp. simply means the species in that specific case is not known. It's not part of any name or anything. You can pick up a tarantula in Texas and state with certainty it is an Aphonopelma sp., because you don't know what species it is, even if it turns out to be a hentzi. Aphonopelma spp. is plural: you are talking about more than one Aphonopelma species.


Yeah, I agree with you here. If I pick up a random tarantula in the wild and I don't know what species it is but I do know it's genus is Aphonopelma then it's fine to refer to it as Aphonopelma sp.

Though there is a difference between Aphonopelma sp. and Aphonopelma sp. "neuse river". Aphonopelma sp. says this is a unidentified Aphonopelma species that could be described but I don't know what it is. Aphonopelma sp. "neuse river" is a placeholder name for a species that has yet to be described or doesn't readily fit in with anything, from the area that it was collected, that has been described. It might be merged into a species that already exists or it might end up being it's own species. Till it's been studied and described/placed it uses the placeholder name.



boina said:


> This is the reasoning behind the use of Poecilotheria sp. "lowland" in Europe - it only means Poecilotheria (whatever species it may be, I don't know) "lowland". Since the people in Germany consider the case about the lowland variant being a subfusca not settled they decided to prefer the sp. - meaning 'I don't know what species it is' and not 'it is undescribed'.


Poecilotheria subfusca and Poecilotheria bara were are both described species before the study that merged them into the same species. So we do know what the species are in both cases even if you don't agree with them being merged. That's why I'm having trouble understanding the use of Poecilotheria sp. "lowland". If they separated the species back apart it would just be Poecilotheria bara (for the lowland) and Poecilotheria subfusca (for the highland) again. Which are both described species. So whats the need of sp. when referring to them? How is using that different from saying Poecilotheria subfusca "highland" or Poecilotheria subfusca "lowland"? What do they call the highland color forms over there? Poecilotheria sp. "highland" or just Poecilotheria subfusca?

I apologize for all the questions. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just not understanding.


----------



## boina (Jun 13, 2017)

Trenor said:


> Though there is a difference between Aphonopelma sp. and Aphonopelma sp. "neuse river".


No, there is no difference, sp.means species - any species - every time. Both mean a kind of Aphonopelma species. "neuse river" has no biological significance, it's not a valid name. You can decide tomorow to call it something else and nobody can question you.



Trenor said:


> Poecilotheria subfusca and Poecilotheria bara were are both described species before the study that merged them into the same species. So we do know what the species are in both cases even if you don't agree with them being merged. That's why I'm having trouble understanding the use of Poecilotheria sp. "lowland".


Poecilotheria sp. is not wrong - it cannot be wrong. It simply means it's a kind of Poecilotheria. Nobody is questioning that. I can call Acanthoscurria geniculata Acanthoscurria sp. "striped knees" and I'd still be right. Whether people understood what I'm talking about is a different question.



Trenor said:


> If they separated the species back apart it would just be Poecilotheria bara (for the lowland) and Poecilotheria subfusca (for the highland) again. Which are both described species. So whats the need of sp. when referring to them? How is using that different from saying Poecilotheria subfusca "highland" or Poecilotheria subfusca "lowland"? What do they call the highland color forms over there? Poecilotheria sp. "highland" or just Poecilotheria subfusca?


So, nobody is questioning the validity of P. subfusca (highland) as a species, therefore it's called as such. But: People are questioning whether P. sp. "lowland" is Poecilotheria subfusca, too, or a different species (P. bara). Since people don't know what species it really is they call it P. sp. - a kind of Poecilotheria. And add "lowland" just for convenience so other people will know what they are talking about. If you call it P. subfusca lowland you are making a taxonomical decision to follow one side of the argument (said publication that merged them) and the Germans are reasoning that they don't have the taxonomical knowledge to do so, so they are using simply sp.

I'm still looking for an in depth explanation of sp. on the web, but I can't find anything - it seem this question has not come up yet, unbelievable as it is .

Edit: Just because one study merged both highland and lowland into one species doesn't mean it's right - it may be right, or it may not. At the moment it seems to be questioned, at least by some people. You do not need to write another study to decide you do not want to follow that studies reasoning. Taxonomy is about consensus.


----------



## Ungoliant (Jun 13, 2017)

boina said:


> I'm still looking for an in depth explanation of sp. on the web, but I can't find anything - it seem this question has not come up yet, unbelievable as it is .


I recall reading some good information on this topic but can't find it anymore. So I'll just quote in brief a few comments on when to use "sp."



			
				Science writing and editing: How to write scientific names said:
			
		

> *Unknown or unspecified species*
> 
> When referring to an unidentified species, use the abbreviation "sp.": The meadow contained several sedge plants (_Carex_ sp.). The plural form is "spp.": The forest floor contained several species of pixie cup lichen (_Cladonia_ spp.). The "sp." and "spp." labels are not italicized.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> *Writing binomial names*
> 
> The abbreviation "sp." is used when the actual specific name cannot or need not be specified. The abbreviation "spp." (plural) indicates "several species". These abbreviations are not italicised (or underlined). For example: "_Canis_ sp." means "an unspecified species of the genus _Canis_", while "_Canis_ spp." means "two or more species of the genus _Canis_".





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> *Abbreviations*
> 
> Books and articles sometimes intentionally do not identify species fully and use the abbreviation "sp." in the singular or "spp." (standing for _species pluralis_, the Latin for multiple species) in the plural in place of the specific name or epithet (e.g. _Canis_ sp.) This commonly occurs when authors are confident that some individuals belong to a particular genus but are not sure to which exact species they belong, as is common in paleontology. Authors may also use "spp." as a short way of saying that something applies to many species within a genus, but not to all. If scientists mean that something applies to all species within a genus, they use the genus name without the specific name or epithet. The names of genera and species are usually printed in italics. Abbreviations such as "sp." should not be italicized.

Reactions: Informative 2 | Love 1


----------



## Trenor (Jun 13, 2017)

boina said:


> No, there is no difference, sp.means species - any species - every time. Both mean a kind of Aphonopelma species. "neuse river" has no biological significance, it's not a valid name. You can decide tomorow to call it something else and nobody can question you.


So what your saying is when we use Hapalopus sp. Colombia (large or small) it's not much better than a common name and I can call it Hapalopus sp. Carrot and that is just as valid?



boina said:


> Edit: Just because one study merged both highland and lowland into one species doesn't mean it's right - it may be right, or it may not. At the moment it seems to be questioned, at least by some people. You do not need to write another study to decide you do not want to follow that studies reasoning. Taxonomy is about consensus.


By that thinking every study can be considered suspect if you can convince a handful of people it is wrong. You don't even have to show evidence. It just seems to me that some people decided nope without having much to show why what they thought was so. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong. 

Edit: I really don't want you to think I'm fussing at you. I'm just really not getting how flaky all of this is sounding. 

@AphonopelmaTX Don't you do some taxonomy stuff? What does someone need to look for when deciding what species a tarantula is? How does this all work?


----------



## Trenor (Jun 13, 2017)

Ungoliant said:


> I recall reading some good information on this topic but can't find it anymore. So I'll just quote in brief a few comments on when to use "sp."


Cool, that was a good breakdown. I understand this part I think. 

My confusion is coming in when you put something behind the sp. (like sp. "somthing") which sounds to me like it's pretty much one step up from a common name. Since it could vary from group to group and all you really know is the genus but nothing else of value.


----------



## Ungoliant (Jun 13, 2017)

Trenor said:


> My confusion is coming in when you put something behind the sp. (like sp. "somthing") which sounds to me like it's pretty much one step up from a common name. Since it could vary from group to group and all you really know is the genus but nothing else of value.


That's how I view it as well, and I don't think scientific literature appends such nicknames to unidentified species.

To wit, _Poecilotheria_ sp. "lowland" is just hobby-speak for an unidentified species of _Poecilotheria_ that some hobbyists have nicknamed "lowland" in the absence of an accepted scientific identification.

This may or may not actually _be_ a distinct species, but some hobbyists see enough differences to question its placement within one of the known species. (I don't pretend to be an expert on _Poecilotheria_ taxonomy, so I am not weighing in on this particular debate, just explaining the nomenclature.)

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jun 13, 2017)

Trenor said:


> So what your saying is when we use Hapalopus sp. Colombia (large or small) it's not much better than a common name and I can call it Hapalopus sp. Carrot and that is just as valid?
> 
> 
> By that thinking every study can be considered suspect if you can convince a handful of people it is wrong. You don't even have to show evidence. It just seems to me that some people decided nope without having much to show why what they thought was so. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong.
> ...


Ungoliant provided a good break down of the use of "sp." and "spp." so I won't go into that.  I am not a taxonomist, never have been.  What I do is keep up-to-date on the latest taxonomic research and use it to identify tarantulas mostly in the pet trade to their proper taxonomic rank (subfamily, genus, species) based on that published research.  I also like to follow along, if you will, with the taxonomic descriptions and their illustrations to see what the characters used to define a taxonomic rank actually look like. For example, one of the characters for the genus Theraphosa is a stridulatory organ consisting of plumose setae on the retrolateral palpal coxa and trochanter; plumose setae on the pro- and retro-lateral coxa and trochanter of leg1; plumose setae on the prolateral coxa and trochanter of leg 2."  Well, I want to know what that actually looks like so I use the molts of my own spiders sold to me as a Theraphosa species and examine them under the microscope.  Doing this over and over with different tarantulas in my own collection, I can come to the conclusion that the scientific name given to a tarantula in the hobby should be suspect and is usually wrong.

To answer the question of "what does someone need to look for when deciding what species a tarantula is?" can be summed up as looking for the characters taxonomists have determined are useful to define a specific taxonomic rank (family, subfamily, genus, species).  Taxonomists when they publish their work include a diagnosis of the subfamily, genus, and/or or species that list these characters.  For example, the recent revision of the red legged Brachypelma species includes the characters to look for that define the genus Brachypelma as well as the characters that define the species Brachypelma hamorii and Brachypelma smithi.  To determine what species a tarantula is whether in the hobby or for one found in the wild, one must use this diagnosis and compare them to what is seen on the actual physical spider.

People don't usually take the time to do that with tarantulas sold in the pet trade and you get scientific names assigned to tarantulas that are flat out wrong.  Since I already mentioned Euathlus sp. "Red" and "Yellow" in this thread I will use it again.  No importer, exporter, seller, etc. has actually taken the time to key these Chilean tarantulas to genus level and for what I can assume just guessed at calling them Euathlus sp.  Well, Radan Kaderka a taxonomist from the Czech Republic, did and posted pictures of key taxonomic characters for these two species on his web site to which you can clearly see that they are a Homoeomma species.  To be brief, the papal bulbs of these Euathlus sp. Red and Yellow have a tegular apophysis which is a character of Homoeomma and not Euathlus.  So to determine what genus these little Chilean tarantulas actually belong to, first have a mature male die.  Then remove the papal bulb from the cymbium and compare what you see from your tarantula to the characters of all genus of South American tarantulas. Eventually, you will come across taxonomic papers on the genus Homoeomma to which the written description and illustrations of the papal bulb match what you see on your own specimen.  Thus, you can key your Euathlus sp. "Red" to being actually a Homoeomma sp.  Since these two tarantulas haven't been formally described, you add the "sp." after the genus to designate that this is an undescribed species of Homoeomma.

That is how one determines what species, or genus, of tarantula they are dealing with.



Trenor said:


> Cool, that was a good breakdown. I understand this part I think.
> 
> My confusion is coming in when you put something behind the sp. (like sp. "somthing") which sounds to me like it's pretty much one step up from a common name. Since it could vary from group to group and all you really know is the genus but nothing else of value.


The "something" after the "sp." in the case of an undetermined or undescribed species of a genus can be as useful as the person who sells or trades a tarantula with it.  We are talking about something hobbiests do to distinguish one tarantula from another so there isn't any official rules to use.  At the end of the day, it really doesn't have any value even if that "something" is a location like Hapalopus sp. Colombia.  Ok, where in Colombia?

Reactions: Informative 5


----------



## Trenor (Jun 13, 2017)

@AphonopelmaTX Thanks, that was great information.


----------



## boina (Jun 14, 2017)

Trenor said:


> By that thinking every study can be considered suspect if you can convince a handful of people it is wrong. You don't even have to show evidence. It just seems to me that some people decided nope without having much to show why what they thought was so. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong.


Basically I think we covered most points in this discussion, but I just want to comment on this:

Yes, every study is suspect by definition until it has been confirmed and generally accepted. And sometimes (in Taxonomy: often?) it gets accepted before it has been confirmed and then sometime later it all gets overthrown. Personal example: This new study about Avicularia and related puts Stromatopelma and Heteroscodra in Aviculariinae, citing evidence I personally find exeedingly thin. I wont accept that part of the study and I can cite scientific reasons for that. Yes, I'm questioning the conclusions of that study, as I have every right to do so.

By the way, I liked discussing this with you

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Trenor (Jun 14, 2017)

Fair enough, I just figured that by the time the study got accepted into the WSC someone had reviewed it enough to make sure it somewhat valid. I've seen several studies that got rejected from there but I'm not sure what their review process is. I know that species can get moved around (a lot sometimes it seems) as more information comes in on them. So it's not set in stone. I just figured it was reviewed better then it seems to be.

I'm curious now though. I'll have to do some digging and see if I can find out what people are disagreeing on in the case of Poecilotheria subfusca. 

Thanks, I tend to ask questions that I'm wondering about in my posts. Some people take that as I'm badgering them but that's just my process for how I think things through. It's nice to be able to discuss topics without people getting overly touchy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Elchaco94 (Dec 10, 2017)

OliverWhatever said:


> If it is a spider I am interested in, I'll manage to remember it in most cases, but when someone drops "A.seemani" or "A.minatrix" in a casual conversation, I have no clue what they are talking about, even if I am familiar with the spider.
> I'll look at some picture of a beautiful spider on the front page with an A, C, L, or T in front of a generic species name, and have no idea what it actually is.


I know this thread is fairly old but in my opinion it depends seeing more and more of the names and genuses and just becoming familiar. I am new to the hobby and recognize a fair few species. There are so many different T's, it will be years before anyone (depending on the person) can identify the majority of the most common T's in the hobby. Depends on where you are from too.


----------



## grumpycow3 (Dec 10, 2017)

if i dont know one i just highlight it and press google "insert t name here"


----------



## Swoop (Dec 10, 2017)

I read almost this entire thread and now I feel smart 

Personally I don't sweat the genus as long as I recognize the species name.  Something like C. lividum?  No clue what the C. stands for and I probably couldn't spell it if I did, but I know it's a blue OW species because I've seen it discussed many times.

As for the common names vs. Latin names, it has been my experience that people who rely on common names either mis-identify their T's or don't have them housed correctly.  My first 'suntiger' was a supposed juvenile that turned out to be a small MM.  My second 'suntiger' turned out to be a P. cambridgei.  It's likely both sellers got them from a particular pet shop nearby that carries lots of species of T's but doesn't label them with Latin names and makes up their own common names.  I have a kritter keeper labeled 'nigerian goliath baboon', it was and is housing a juvenile Brachypelma albopilosum when I got it but I googled nigerian goliath baboon and my best guess, it originally housed a P. muticus.

Common names have their place though.  GBB?  Nothing ambiguous about that one.  Curlyhair, same story.  I mix up P. murinus and P. muticus all the time, but when they're called OBT and King Baboon it's easy to remember which is which.


----------

