# Hottentotta revision



## Vincent (Sep 18, 2007)

Today Kovariks revision of the genus Hottentotta was finally released. I have been waiting for this for a long time but it is definitely worth the wait 

Warning document is 32 MB
http://www.science.marshall.edu/fet/euscorpius/p2007_58%20full.pdf

For anyone with a slow connection look at the bottom of the page for a 5 part download
http://www.science.marshall.edu/fet/euscorpius/pubs.htm

I'm just finished printing it (it's 109 pages long) and at first sight I saw some interesting changes. 
Some things I noticed are

4 new species:
Hottentotta finneganae
Hottentotta jabalpurensis
Hottentotta jalalabadensis
Hottentotta stockwelli

3 subspecies (maybe more but I'm tired now) are elevated to species
Hottentotta franzwerneri gentili --> Hottentotta gentili
Hottentotta jayakari salei --> Hottentotta salei
Hottentotta alticola penjabensis --> Hottentotta penjabensis

Some species are synonymized (if this is the correct word??) 
Hottentotta caboverdensis --> Hottentotta Hottentotta
Hottentotta acostai --> Hottentotta minax
Hottentotta tamulus concanensis, Hottentotta tamulus sindicus, Hottentotta tamulus gurajatensis, Hottentotta tamulus gangeticus --> Hottentotta tamulus

As I said I only took a quick look so I might have missed some things.


----------



## brandontmyers (Sep 18, 2007)

Vincent,

Thanks bro, this is gonna be a great read. Why is h. caboverdensis and H. hottentotta synonymized again? I thought they actually broke it into two species????

Brandon


----------



## Australis (Sep 18, 2007)

Vincent said:


> Some species are synonymized (if this is the correct word??)
> *Hottentotta caboverdensis --> Hottentotta Hottentotta*
> Hottentotta acostai --> Hottentotta minax
> *Hottentotta tamulus concanensis, Hottentotta tamulus sindicus, Hottentotta tamulus gurajatensis, Hottentotta tamulus gangeticus --> Hottentotta tamulus*
> ...


I'm puzzled...i'm abit slow on this  
So for instance, if i had caboverdensis, its now a Hotentotta hottentotta ? Its the same thing ? parthenogenic too ?

The second one is Hot.tamulus...all of them are to be lump together as the same species ? So now they are just Hot. tamulus tats all ?

Sorry but i'm blur


----------



## brandontmyers (Sep 18, 2007)

Yeah at first I thought H. caboverdensis was just a subspecies, because yes it too is parthenogenic. But I thought they made it a valid species..but now it looks like they changed it..


----------



## icefish (Sep 18, 2007)

i love it, thanks alot!! vincent, you are the man!!!


----------



## Australis (Sep 18, 2007)

So wats the difference in the first place that caused it to be split into a subspecies ? :? 
Size ?

I did notice that my first Hottentotta hottentotta was quite big when compared to my caboverdensis which is surprisingly small...for an adult female


----------



## Ythier (Sep 19, 2007)

Lokal said:


> Why is h. caboverdensis and H. hottentotta synonymized again?


Just because Kovarik always do everything he can do to destroy Lourenço's work...
Wait a little bit to changes your caboverdensis labels guys, an other article should be published soon, Lourenço and I studied many specimens (contrary to Kovarik) and it's obvious that H.caboverdensis and H.hottentotta are different species.
Cheers
Eric


----------



## Vincent (Sep 19, 2007)

Why should we wait with changes the caboverdensis lables?? I was told on many occasions on this board that the correct way is to follow the latest publication untill it has been proven wrong. If you and Lourenco publish a new document that's your right but to be honost I don't see any differences between H. hottentotta and H. caboverdensis.

PS Kovarik is not out to destroy Lourenco's work but if mistakes are made they need to be corrected.


----------



## Australis (Sep 19, 2007)

I smell smoke


----------



## Ythier (Sep 19, 2007)

Vincent said:


> I was told on many occasions on this board the correct way is to follow the latest publication untill it has been proven wrong


...and that's totally right !



Vincent said:


> I don't see any differences between H. hottentotta and H. caboverdensis.


OK Vincent that's your opinion, and you probably examined more than the tens of specimens, holotypes and paratypes of H.hottentotta, nigrocarinatus and caboverdensis we examined at the Museum to write our paper. You surely also compared life cycles of those species on several generations, keeping molts, measuring, counting and drawing carenae, granules, trichobotrial pattern, etc. And you probably know also very well the process of allopatric speciation.

Or maybe you've just put two specimens or pictures side by side ? If so, your opinion on status of both species is not really useful.

Cheers
Eric


----------



## Vincent (Sep 19, 2007)

No I have not examined as many species as you did but I thought the purpose of a scientific paper is that anyone can use that paper to check (with the use of a microscope) if the specimen he or she has is correctly labled. If I take your description of H. caboverdensis and I compare it with a description of H. hottentotta there is not much difference. Surely size, pectinal count and color are not a basis to distinguish one species from another. I know you also mention stronger marked granulations on carapace and tergites but 3 of the 4 points are hardly scientific basis for comparison. I respect the work you did but I think you are not objective as you are one of the authors of the H. caboverdensis document.


----------



## pandinus (Sep 19, 2007)

weel, this seems like an appropriate time to ask this question i have always wondered, when a scientist publishes a new species, or redescribes an old one, does it go through a board or a comittee, or some sort of finalizing before it is considered to be an actual spp.? at what point does it go from one person's opinion, to an accepted taxonomic species?


----------



## Nazgul (Sep 20, 2007)

Hi,

according to my opinion a significant more dense granulation alone justifies a sp status, let alone in combination with the other mentioned features. I have to agree with Kovarik regarding the invalidity of the elevation of H. nigrocarinatus though, as Lourenco is mentioning it in just one sentence.



Vincent said:


> ...Surely size, pectinal count and color are not a basis to distinguish one species from another...


While Kovarik is criticizing Lourenco he´s not doing much better sometimes. Take the elevation of salei for example. Kovarik´s only reason is the different colouration. There´s no significant difference in morphology of jayakari and salei, they are producing fertile offspring and they are more or less sharing the distribution range. This rather indicates a synonymization than an elevation, don´t you think? Mayr´s biological sp concept might be a bit old, but it shouldn´t be abandoned completely, I think.

Another example: Kovarik doesn´t give any reason for the synonymization of the former M. tamulus subspp either. I think he´s right doing it though, but he should have come up with some arguments as long as he criticizes Lourenco for not doing it, don´t you think?


@pandinus: as long as an elevation, description, revision, etc follows the rules of the International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature, it sets the stand of taxonomy. This means you just have to publish something and it becomes valid automatically. The commission only has to decide when it comes to a disagreement between scientists and one of them or both are asking for a decision. The acceptance of certain taxonomical positions is up to yourself.

When publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, your work is being checked by the so-called peers, The rules of the ICZN don´t  require the publication in a peer-reviewed journal though.


----------



## Michiel (Sep 21, 2007)

Like Alex states, both authors mentioned sometimes state things without justification and when this happens, it is nothing more than ordinary finger pointing. In my opinion scientific discussion should (in an ideal world) lead to a consensus, but it is not always possible. It should not be a contest, although I understand there is some competition, also in the scientific world. 

Too bad the culture in the science community seems, or between some members of this community, to point at eachother like "he doesn't explain this" or "no justification this or that". It would be a lot more mature and objective if authors wrote out of their own perspective without adding these kind of remarks. This, in my opinion, would be more respectful to your fellow scientists.


----------

