# Common Names vs Scientific Names



## RyTheTGuy (Apr 16, 2011)

I've seen tons of member comments telling people if they want to contribute to the hobby then use the scientific name, instead of the common name......but if everyone uses the scientific names wouldn't that also make it the more commonly used name, right?....it seems like people frown upon it when someone says Mexican Red Knee,Trinidad Chevron, Gooty Sapphire, Brazilian Red and White ect. Why? Not everyone want to say the scientific name, some are long and ridiculous. I use them most of the time but i also like use the common names.


----------



## Hobo (Apr 16, 2011)

Scientific names never change, or if they do, the old one becomes obsolete and unused. Use a scientific name, and everybody will know what spider you're on about.

Common names change and are made up all the time, and are vague at best.
They are fine for casual conversation with non bug people, but if you're asking for help, opinions, or males, you're going to need to be more specific.

Which tarantulas are these?

Red rump
Striped knee
Tiger rump
Pinktoe
Zebra spider


----------



## JC (Apr 16, 2011)

RyTheTGuy said:


> I've seen tons of member comments telling people if they want to contribute to the hobby then use the scientific name, instead of the common name......but if everyone uses the scientific names wouldn't that also make it the more commonly used name, right?....it seems like people frown upon it when someone says Mexican Red Knee,Trinidad Chevron, Gooty Sapphire, Brazilian Red and White ect. Why? Not everyone want to say the scientific name, some are long and ridiculous. I use them most of the time but i also like use the common names.


Would you be confident in purchasing a spider simply IDed as a Mexican chicken-crusher birdeating spider? How about a Chinese Demon Flaming Dragon tarantula?

It's all so much easier to identify a species through scientific classification and tell the reader a lot more about the spider like the genus and attributes of that genus vs letting common people/pet shops/etc. run amuck and make up their own names because they think it's 'cooler'. Some common names are shared by several different spiders of different genera on different continents. Learning the names is not that difficult, just takes time.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and learn to use scientific names, you will be better of in the long run, and will help if you wish to be taken seriously by experienced keepers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Fran (Apr 16, 2011)

Please,

Common names, (let me repeat what other members said already) are the best way to confusion, to screw with  ID's , to create a mess and to damage the hobby.
There are so many different common names to the same spider, that  it boils my blood to see it written around.(Specially when CERTAIN  KNOWN dealers make up their own FOR SELLING PURPOSES)

If you (ex as of anybody) are in the hobby but didnt even bother to learn the scientific name of your own animal, just because is "too long" or seems "ridiculous" , thats beyond lazy and shows quite a lot  about  the person in question.
SPECIALLY on the Classifieds section.

---------- Post added at 03:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 AM ----------

Brazilian giant pink hair
Brazilian salmons
Giant salmon hair
Giant salmon birdeater...


----------



## lookerbrian (Apr 16, 2011)

Personally I think you should use the scientific name.  When I first started in this hobby it was ridiculous how many different names each t has like g Rosea(ex: rose hair, Chilean rose hair, flame rose etc.).  Its just easier using the scientific. That way when you're buying or selling you know EXACTLY what you are looking at.


----------



## Larkin (Apr 16, 2011)

Hi,

You may find the following article interesting:


Baxter, R. N. 2011. What's In A Name? _Journal of the British Tarantula Society_ 26(1): 3-10.

Regards,
Tomasz


----------



## Poxicator (Apr 16, 2011)

This topic raises its head in many forums, many times, a quick search will provide plenty of answers although its already been answered above.
When we first join the hobby the use of scientific names seems odd (unless we're used to doing so for some other animal, plant etc). But soon we see some inconsistences and errors plus when it comes to selling or breeding people will want to know that the species they are buying are correct to that advertised. 
There are a number of species sold according to their common colour names eg. Singapore Blue which don't reach their full colour until maturity and after which the electric blues subside to a midnight blue. Others are attributed place names such as Brazilian Black and Honduran Curly Hair which are far more likely to have been sourced from other countries - Brazilian Black are exported from Hondurus due to export bans from Brazil and the Curly Hair is more abundant in Costa Rica.
Some species do not have common names, or have only partial common names - check out the Pink Toes (Avicularia), there's loads of them given over 30 different names but not specifically ID'd as different species.
As noted above, the scientific name provides an accurate ID of the tarantula and route to the family eg. Araneae(Spiders)/Theraphosidea(Tarantula)/Brachypelma(Genus)/albopilosum(species). These names are provided by the scientific community before the common names arrive.
It might not be such an issue in the US, although I guess it would be when dealing with South America or Canada, but in Europe the scientific name crosses the language barrier. I can buy tarantula from Germany, France, Poland, Czech. etc knowing that Im dealing with the same species.
Whilst it all seems so much easier to suggest common names because we consider the scientific names to be more adult or professional, Ive yet to hear someone tell me the common for what was probably my first use of a scientific name, way back in early school years - T. rex!

Go with the flow, consider it a step in the right direction, and when you're on board have a chuckle at this, from Stanley Schultz: www.atshq.org/articles/stanholycow.pdf


----------



## beckett5000 (Apr 16, 2011)

RyTheTGuy said:


> I've seen tons of member comments telling people if they want to contribute to the hobby then use the scientific name, instead of the common name......but if everyone uses the scientific names wouldn't that also make it the more commonly used name, right?....it seems like people frown upon it when someone says Mexican Red Knee,Trinidad Chevron, Gooty Sapphire, Brazilian Red and White ect. Why? Not everyone want to say the scientific name, some are long and ridiculous. I use them most of the time but i also like use the common names.


I love my Brazilian species, and they are a good example to your question. The Brazilian black and white is a common name for several species. You could be talking about the A. brocklehursti, A. geniculata, or N. colloratovillosus. All three of these guys have several common names one being the Brazilian black and white. To make sure you are talking about the same T you have to use the scientific name. I like using the common names as well, but I always make sure I have a scientific name to go with it so everyone knows what T I'm talking about. For example I might say "Check out my new pictures of my Acanthoscurria brocklehursti (Giant Black & White Banded).''


----------



## DamoK21 (Apr 16, 2011)

Hobo said:


> Common name
> Red rump
> Striped knee
> Tiger rump
> ...


ok then fella, for the hell of it ill take a stab at your names lol

Red Rump: B.vegans/L.difficilus/T.cyaneolum god noes how many more << one reason for scientific names here 

Striped knee: A.seemani/L.striatus/to many

Tiger rump: C.fasciatum/H.longipes/hell god noes how many tigers have this common name

Pinktoe: covers EVERY Avic out there

Zebra: i cant be asked the list is endless from Aphonopelma to old worlds such as Haplopelma

This here should help open your eyes, the common names cover so many diffrent spiders, New world and Old world, all requireing diffrent requirments. As oready been said, NOT GOOD


----------



## fartkowski (Apr 16, 2011)

I am really bad with the common names. At shows people ask me if we have a species and I have no clue what it is.
When I started in the hobby, I made it a point to only learn scientific names.
I found a good way to do this is to label your tanks with only the scientific name. If your like me, and are always looking in on them, 
you'll learn it sooner than you think.
Now pronouncing them correctly, that's another story


----------



## jt39565 (Apr 16, 2011)

*My own personal experience on this...*

I hated scientific names when I got my first T, just last year. Then as I learned more read more and generally began to study up for future purchases I began to see a strong need for univeral classification (scientific names).
 One only needs to search earlier post from a new member asking for id on their new purchase which was sold as a "birdeater" and looking for info on the net lead them to hundreds of birdeaters.
 Scientific names look overwhelming but in fact are very easy to learn, I can't remember where it is located ( I got a new computer) there is a website that someone recorded the pronunciations to the scientific names. It really helped me out alot.
 Thats just my two cents worth.


----------



## Chris_Skeleton (Apr 16, 2011)

fartkowski said:


> I am really bad with the common names. At shows people ask me if we have a species and I have no clue what it is.
> When I started in the hobby, I made it a point to only learn scientific names.
> I found a good way to do this is to label your tanks with only the scientific name. If your like me, and are always looking in on them,
> you'll learn it sooner than you think.
> Now pronouncing them correctly, that's another story


+1. I decided to learn the scientific names instead of the common names when I started out. To be honest, they are 'cooler' than the common names.


----------



## crawltech (Apr 16, 2011)

..also, the OP tates that some are to long,,,yet he writes "Brazilian red and white"...wich is 21 characters..."A. geniculata" is a lil shorter @ only 11 characters....hmmmm....honestly "brazilian red and white" is long and ridiculous......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rockstarpets (Apr 16, 2011)

Don't listen to people who would rather ridicule than help here OP,  I don't think your question is invalid, though I do side with everyone else here for the same reasons.

  Another thing I want to add as a benefit.  If I know an animal's binomial name I often know a variety of things about that species to give me a base knowledge and some insight to its care, behavior, etc.  In no way am I saying that knowing the genus is like a care sheet, but it gives knowledge to base off of.  Usually I can pretty quickly tell if it is communal, arboreal/terrestrial, what region it is found, likely approximate size, and even likely temperament.

  I will also tell you that once you learn some latin and start to understand the common phrases that come up and the way the words flow it will come to you quickly and easily, it's just a bit of a challenge to learn your first bit; but i promise it is worth the effort.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rue (Apr 16, 2011)

Since it's on topic...I just want to add...it's funny that we insist on using the correct scientific name (vs. the confusing common name/s), but then can't be bothered using the correct presentation...

Genus is capitalized, species is not, and they are _italicised_ OR can also be underlined (although this is becoming obsolete, you still see it a lot in older material, and is handy when handwriting)...

_Grammostola pulchra_  or _G. pulchra_ NOT G. Pulchra 

It's not a whole lot of extra effort these days...


----------



## Rockstarpets (Apr 16, 2011)

Rue said:


> Since it's on topic...I just want to add...it's funny that we insist on using the correct scientific name (vs. the confusing common name/s), but then can't be bothered using the correct presentation...
> 
> Genus is capitalized, species is not, and they are _italicised_ OR can also be underlined (although this is becoming obsolete, you still see it a lot in older material, and is handy when handwriting)...
> 
> ...


Have a biology background do we?


----------



## paassatt (Apr 16, 2011)

I agree that the use of common names promotes laziness and should be shunned. The link for pronunciation of scientific names is in Joe's (xhexdx's) sticky in this subforum dealing with the answers to common questions. The author of that page also has one explaining the meanings of the Latin and Greek words that comprise scientific names- really neat stuff. If you care about your spiders, take the time to learn their scientific classification/taxonomy and you'll be doing both yourself and the hobby a favor. It's not that hard, guys.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rue (Apr 16, 2011)

Rockstarpets said:


> Have a biology background do we?


...does it show?


----------



## TaraculasByte (Apr 16, 2011)

*great post rythetguy*

i was going to say this in my newly created thread "what species lay the most eggs" only because someone gave me crap about using "common names"...the same happened on the other forum that i posted the same question about egg sac size. my question was totally ignored, but insead im told to call them by their scientific names...


As far as the scientific names….here is my opinion about their usage. Thanks to all of you, that insist on using these extremely long and hard to pronounce names, the tatarntula & hobby is very unknown throughout the world. 
       Think about it, do dogs have strange scientific names? And if they do, how many people would be able to name the breeds off hand, or spell, or pronounce. Very few im sure. But look at how popular dogs are throughout the world, and how many people have pretty basic knowledge of most dog breeds. Or lets look at snakes, if you were to ask people at random, name 3 popular types of snakes. What would they say? Python, boa, anaconda, rattler, gartner? Or would they say some crazy scientific names, like regis, imperator, eunectes, crotalus, columbrid. 
       Twenty years ago, if you would have asked me what a tarantula was, I would have said a very big spider. While not having any clue, that there was close to 800 different tarantula species. If you asked ten people at random today, “name a type of tarantula” you’d be lucky if one person knew their was more than one type. Why is this? Its because you people don’t use the common names. Ive never heard anyone talk about common names of tarantulas, up until six months ago when I started to research the purchase of T's. To me and most others, a tarantula is just a tarantula. Just a big spider. Im sure if there common names were used more frequently in the past, I would have heard of all the different species years ago. “wow look! A Mexican red knee” or “o-my god, look how big that goliath bird eater is” do you really think the average person is going to want to memorize all these scientific names? “hey look, what a beautiful brachypelma smithi” or “hey look at this huge theraphosa blondi” and those are the easier ones to say. But see if any one has heard of the white collared tarantula, I doubt they’ll say “o you mean the eupalaestrus weijenberghi”
       now if you went out on to the streets, and asked people to name a type of spider, what would they say? tarantula, black widow, daddy long leg? NOBODY is going to say the scientic name. why? its because its like speaking a foreign language.
        Thanks to all you ignoring the common names, and insisting on trying to be all official with your scientific mumbo jumbo, I and so many others have missed out on a great hobby/pet.
         And look, here I am trying to learn and gather data for other commoners (in my thread, about egg sac size), and what happens? “don’t use the common names, you should try and use the scientific names, WHY! so the hobby continues to stay a secret to the rest of the world. “here, we speak in code”…”we don’t use common words”…“get with the program!” its very irritating when i think about it. i mean dont get me wrong, its good to know the scientific names, but its more important to learn and spread the common names first!

        I highly doubt that you "T collectors" could know all these excessively long scientific names, but not the short memorable common names that go with them. You people need to embrace the common names, for the prosperity of the hobby.


----------



## JC (Apr 16, 2011)

*Wrong*



TaraculasByte said:


> i was going to say this in my newly created thread "what species lay the most eggs" only because someone gave me crap about using "common names"...the same happened on the other forum that i posted the same question about egg sac size. my question was totally ignored, but insead im told to call them by their scientific names...
> 
> 
> As far as the scientific names….here is my opinion about their usage. Thanks to all of you, that insist on using these extremely long and hard to pronounce names, the tatarntula & hobby is very unknown throughout the world.
> ...












Are you sure they where 'ignoring' you? Or maybe they were just confused as to what species were on your confusing/uneducated list?

Read the thread, take the advice, and *LEARN*.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Apr 16, 2011)

TaraculasByte said:


> i was going to say this in my newly created thread "what species lay the most eggs" only because someone gave me crap about using "common names"...the same happened on the other forum that i posted the same question about egg sac size. my question was totally ignored, but insead im told to call them by their scientific names...
> 
> 
> As far as the scientific names….here is my opinion about their usage. Thanks to all of you, that insist on using these extremely long and hard to pronounce names, the tatarntula & hobby is very unknown throughout the world.
> ...


No, no it's not.  It helps no one.  We're not speaking in code at all.  Read back through the threads on common vs. scientific names or to a couple of choice posts in this thread.  If you're just keeping a species or two & have no intention of breeding, fine.  When you need details on a particular spider, good luck finding reasonable information via common name.  Not so stunningly, many people here now that made this same claim when they first started in the hobby have made a 180 and have surprised themselves with how utterly easy it is to pick up on binomials.  If you want to insist on calling your "tatarntulas" by their common names, you will necessarily catch a lot of flack by people that have put out the effort to learn this" foreign language".  The vast majority of us here care not for what the person on the street or the "person at random" thinks about something they know nothing about.  Common sense, as is said, is not all that common.  Also, dog breeds are not of  representative of any multiple species.  Quite the contrary- they are highly manipulated physical characteristics of the same species.  If you want to be taken seriously, please learn to "do as the Romans do, when in Rome".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Motorkar (Apr 16, 2011)

Personaly I hate common names becouse I don't know what species is so I stick with scientific names and they are somehow easier to rember.


----------



## NikiP (Apr 16, 2011)

TaraculasByte said:


> i was going to say this in my newly created thread "what species lay the most eggs" only because someone gave me crap about using "common names"...the same happened on the other forum that i posted the same question about egg sac size. my question was totally ignored, but insead im told to call them by their scientific names...
> 
> 
> As far as the scientific names….here is my opinion about their usage. Thanks to all of you, that insist on using these extremely long and hard to pronounce names, the tatarntula & hobby is very unknown throughout the world.
> ...


Your arguement is invalid. 

1) Europe has a huge invertebrate market. Canada has a fairly decent one. There seems to be an increasing number of Asian posters on here recently.

2) How many people start out googling tarantulas, seeing the scientific names, & get scared off? Probably no where near as many that buy a G. rosea at their LPS then go looking on the world wide web to find out why their G. rosea is on their back only to come across a board like this then proceed to buy a million tarantulas online that aren't found in the majority of pet stores.

3) Are you involved in very many hobbies?

What hobby doesn't evolve to have some language of it's own?

I'd love to own a grizzled marble half moon doubletail. Do you know what that is? Doubt it.

Do you know what EeAaCcrCcr DW would be? Doubt it.

Do you know what a dragging knee or bagger is? Maybe.

Do you know what a  frag is? Maybe.

4) Copy & paste isn't that hard.

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------




RyTheTGuy said:


> Don't get me wrong, I use scientific names on all of my Ts and most of the ones I read about. I try to learn both common and scientific names, but it just baffles me that the scientific name is really the more commonly used name. Why not just drop all common names and just use scientific names....it would make thing a lot easier for all. The only T I use the common name(abbreviation) more then the scientific name is on OBT for some reason.
> 
> P.s. Thanks for everyones comments.


Because most people come into the hobby from buying things at pet stores, run by people that aren't usually willing to learn or end up learning from sources that never bother to expand their own.


----------



## RyTheTGuy (Apr 16, 2011)

TaraculasByte said:


> i was going to say this in my newly created thread "what species lay the most eggs" only because someone gave me crap about using "common names"...the same happened on the other forum that i posted the same question about egg sac size. my question was totally ignored, but insead im told to call them by their scientific names...
> 
> 
> As far as the scientific names….here is my opinion about their usage. Thanks to all of you, that insist on using these extremely long and hard to pronounce names, the tatarntula & hobby is very unknown throughout the world.
> ...


“hey look, what a beautiful brachypelma smithi” or “hey look at this huge theraphosa blondi” Most people would say B. smithi or T. blondi you dont need to say the genus only the first letter in MOST cases.

Just to let you know, ALL domestic dogs regardless of breed or mix, is Canis lupis familiaris, some of the stuff you said is ridiculous, but your post was why i made this. I dont understand why people don't embrace the so called "COMMON NAMES" isn't it the common name? no the scientific name is the name we use........ok that makes tons of sense...thats all im wondering I actually think the scientific names sound better.


----------



## Jester (Apr 16, 2011)

I just recently got into this hobby about a month ago and have only learned the scientific names so far. It takes away the guesswork, you KNOW which species you're looking at. For someone like me that doesn't know much about identifying tarantulas, when I hear the scientific name, I can recall hearing the name previously and some general information I remember about it, but I'm completely lost with the common names. I went to a pet store and they had both the common name and the scientific name labeling each of the spiders, I didn't know any of the common names but I recognized the scientific names at once.

I think that "common name" refers to what someone on the street might call them, not someone that's getting into the hobby. If you go on a snake board, you'd hear a garter snake being called _Thamnophis sirtalis_, not a garter snake (sorry, first example that came to mind). Same goes for here. It's a specialized forum, and draws in a certain demographic -- people that are interested in spiders. People off the street wouldn't come here because they're not interested, so they might know the common name at best, not the scientific name.

In regards to TaraculasByte's post, the reason people aren't into the hobby is because they're scared of spiders, not because we don't use the common names. There's plenty of people that are scared of dogs, does that take away from the dog breeding hobby? Most kids go through a bug phase, but then they're influenced by the media. The media says that spiders are gross and scary, and that they'll kill you if they bite you. Of course, we in the tarantula community know that no tarantula can take down a healthy person, just irritate them for a little while. There's a lot that isn't known about tarantulas, whereas we know a lot about dogs, cats, rabbits, gerbils, hamsters, and other such mammals. Tarantulas require a lot of specialized care. They're hard work. You can just buy a dog, put the dog in your yard and give it a bowl of food and water and it will be fine, but that's obviously not the case for a tarantula. Nobody says the scientific name on the street because they're not into tarantulas. If you asked me to name a type of tarantula, I could gladly tell you many scientific names for them, as could many other users on this (or any other) tarantula forum. Do you know why it's like speaking a foreign language when speaking a scientific name? It is! It's Latin! -pops you on the forehead- Coulda had a V8!
I have done just fine with learning only the scientific names. I feel that if you are truly interested in the hobby, you will not miss out on the great opportunity presented to you and dive straight in to learning the scientific names. The common names will only help you if you work in a pet store. But if you worked in a pet store, could you please tell me the color sponge you put in the tank? How's the sand holding up? Obviously you don't really want to be around spiders, or else you would bother to put in the minuscule effort for learning the scientific names. 
Or maybe you're just lazy.


----------



## High_Rolling_T (Apr 16, 2011)

TaraculasByte said:


> Think about it, do dogs have strange scientific names?


Yes, it's _Canis lupus familiaris_. That covers all dogs since all dogs are of the same species.  Tarantulas on the other hand are a completely different story as there are about 930 documented species plus countless others undiscovered/documented.



TaraculasByte said:


> And if they do, how many people would be able to name the breeds off hand, or spell, or pronounce.


As many people are actually interested in them truly.



TaraculasByte said:


> Twenty years ago, if you would have asked me what a tarantula was, I would have said a very big spider. While not having any clue, that there was close to 800 different tarantula species.


930 -> The Tarantula Bibliography




TaraculasByte said:


> TIf you asked ten people at random today, “name a type of tarantula” you’d be lucky if one person knew their was more than one type.


Lol. Anyone with common sense would know there is more than one type of tarantula in the world.



TaraculasByte said:


> TWhy is this? Its because you people don’t use the common names.


Also lol. If a person has never heard about all the types of tarantulas there are, then its because tarantulas have little to do with their lives or they haven't heard it period.  Not because the people talking about it are using certain terminology. I could go get any tarantula and call it the Zulu Zulu Great Armanoid Turkey Hunting Xylophone Pinkerton Land Octopus(more commonly known in the hobby as the ZZGATHXPLO), and those people who haven't heard about all the types of tarantula's still won't hear about it because it just isn't something that crosses paths with their lives. Even if I did talk to them about my ZZGATHXPLO, they still wouldn't know there is tons of types of tarantulas out there. 




TaraculasByte said:


> To me and most others, a tarantula is just a tarantula. Just a big spider.


Yeah, they're all just the same thing, no need for different care, housing, feeding, etc. Please sell your tarantula(s) as you clearly can't differentiate(probably other than by the purty colorz) enough to properly care for them as is evident by your ignorant statement here.




TaraculasByte said:


> “wow look! A Mexican red knee” or “o-my god, look how big that goliath bird eater is”


Are you talking about a _Brachypelma emilia_? _Brachypelma smithi_? _Brachypelma bohmei_? And the second one... a _Theraphosa stirmi_? _Theraphosa blondi_? _Theraphosa apophysis_?



TaraculasByte said:


> do you really think the average person is going to want to memorize all these scientific names?


So memorizing 2 words is harder than 3 words? I'd like to give people more credit then that. Not to mention that I can remember one scientific name for a tarantula, or have to memorize the 5 common names(that generally are a country, color, and body part in some miscellaneous order) that a tarantula could have, and hope that new ones aren't being made up everyday because someone feels one sounds better or doesn't know the original one so just wings it.



TaraculasByte said:


> “hey look, what a beautiful brachypelma smithi” or “hey look at this huge theraphosa blondi”


OHHH, now I actually know which tarantulas you are referring to, before it was all just a guess as to which of many possibilities you were talking about. And also, the genus is capitalized.



TaraculasByte said:


> But see if any one has heard of the white collared tarantula, I doubt they’ll say “o you mean the eupalaestrus weijenberghi”


And what if I asked someone about the white ringed tarantula? Thats a perfectly valid common name for a _Eupalaestrus weijenberjhi_.  Just like if I asked you have you seen my pink toe tarantula?  I can guarantee you that I'm not talking about an _Avicularia avicularia_, so have fun guessing which of the other 50 or so tarantulas in the _Avicularia spp._ it is.




TaraculasByte said:


> NOBODY is going to say the scientic name. why? its because its like speaking a foreign language.


No, it is because they are not educated on the scientific names of tarantulas.  Just like if you showed me a picture of a whale, I couldn't tell you if its a humpback whale, a blue whale, a sperm whale, or some other type of whale all together. Why? Not because I'm not using a common name, but because I just don't have any knowledge in my history on whales.



TaraculasByte said:


> Thanks to all you ignoring the common names, and insisting on trying to be all official with your scientific mumbo jumbo, I and so many others have missed out on a great hobby/pet


I'm sorry that the words I say caused you to be oblivious to what tarantulas there are?  I'll try and watch my language so you can expand your lifetime experiences. </sarcasm> You missed out on it because
1.) you just weren't exposed to it(this is the majority of people)
2.) you heard people saying scientific names and apparently that is too hard for you, no real point in being educated on something you're actually interested in




TaraculasByte said:


> And look, here I am trying to learn and gather data for other commoners (in my thread, about egg sac size), and what happens? “don’t use the common names, you should try and use the scientific names, WHY!


Why? Because clearly nobody has any idea which tarantula you are talking about. If you had used a scientific name, then everyone would know exactly what tarantula it is and can give you an answer(unless since all a tarantula is to you is just "one big spider", they must all therefore just lay the same size and amount of eggs so there is no real reason to be specific about which one you want an answer for).



TaraculasByte said:


> but its more important to learn and spread the common names first!


No, it's not. Anyone can use any common name they want for any tarantula, have fun remembering the 5 different names and their x amount of permutations for each tarantula



TaraculasByte said:


> I highly doubt that you "T collectors" could know all these excessively long scientific names, but not the short memorable common names that go with them


Common names are often not memorable. As I said earlier, the majority are just a random combination of the tarantulas origin, one of their colors, and what body parts has the color. Not to mention that many common names can apply to more than one tarantula.



TaraculasByte said:


> You people need to embrace the common names, for the prosperity of the hobby.


The hobby has grown extremely well without the use of common names, there is no need for them other than to cause confusion and be lazy.




Fran said:


> I see you have very little interest. No worries, I wont be bothering you anymore.


+100

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PrimalTaunt (Apr 16, 2011)

RyTheTGuy said:


> Why not just drop all common names and just use scientific names....it would make thing a lot easier for all.


I think that would be a dream come true to many on these boards and myself included.  Just think about it - no more, "I just bough this as a blahblahblah... what is it," threads!  But that will never happen - the vast majority of pet stores cater to the lowest common denominator so they will only put some common name which is frequently one that nobody has heard of before or that they simply made up on the spot.  It's just easier for them to sell something with a colorful name attached to it than a harder to pronounce scientific name.


----------



## RyTheTGuy (Apr 16, 2011)

yeah, you might be right. but yes I really am. I love Ts, they interest me more then anything. I just don't see the point in having common names if they are frowned upon. Why not take them out and get rid of all this confusion.


----------



## Motorkar (Apr 16, 2011)

TarantulaByte: You know, technally tarantula is not corrct common name for  this genera? You know what is it called? Bird eater. First setlers that came to america saw this big spider who was eating a small huming brd and they called it bird eater. Tarantula was brought later in 19th century wich came with itallian emigration to the states. Tarantula is a species of a wolf spider wich origins is surrounding the town of Taranto in Italy. Here it is:





Not to mantion we in europe, asia and in australia use word bird eater, africans call them baboon spiders. But we never use common names, we always use scientific names, thats becouse we don't have comon names. Thats something strictly america and canada related and I think its just to confuse people. Its just like I would call some spider A lunatic Orange bafoon spider of death. I bet you wouldn't know wich spider is that,  now would you?;P


----------



## RyTheTGuy (Apr 16, 2011)

Im pretty sure you are talking about a P. murinus, but thats just a guess.


----------



## Motorkar (Apr 16, 2011)

RyTheTGuy said:


> Im pretty sure you are talking about a P. murinus, but thats just a guess.


Nope, I meant B. smithi. I guess I made the point.;P


----------



## Rue (Apr 16, 2011)

...since I'm nit-picking...

There IS a list (or two ;P) of 'approved' common names - problem is no one wants to follow the list consistantly enough to make it as useful as scientfic names are.


----------



## High_Rolling_T (Apr 16, 2011)

Motorkar said:


> Not to mantion we in europe, asia and in australia use word bird eater, africans call them baboon spiders.


Actually, in Asia they are known as earth tigers and Austrailia as whistling spiders.




Motorkar said:


> But we never use common names, we always use scientific names, thats becouse we don't have comon names.


Lucky 



Motorkar said:


> Its just like I would call some spider A lunatic Orange bafoon spider of death. I bet you wouldn't know wich spider is that,  now would you?;P


Come on now, any reference to an orange angry spider in this hobby is universal


----------



## Croaton (Apr 16, 2011)

TaraculasByte said:


> i was going to say this in my newly created thread "what species lay the most eggs" only because someone gave me crap about using "common names"...the same happened on the other forum that i posted the same question about egg sac size. my question was totally ignored, but insead im told to call them by their scientific names...
> 
> 
> As far as the scientific names….here is my opinion about their usage. Thanks to all of you, that insist on using these extremely long and hard to pronounce names, the tatarntula & hobby is very unknown throughout the world.
> ...


LOL... wow... this sort of stupidity amazes me... I think the others have said more than enough about it though.

As for the use of common names... it bugs me as well... I hate going into a LPS and seeing T's labelled with common names.  I don't know about you but I don't feel comfortable paying for something without knowing exactly what it is, what the proper price range should be, and how I am going to need to care for it!  

When people use common names it immediately gives me the feeling that they really have no idea what they are talking about and have done no research on the specimen they have... personally I would never deal with them for those reasons.

Use of the scientific names makes everything so much more black and white.  No confusion, no guessing, and proper information being shared.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mez (Apr 16, 2011)

> Another thing I want to add as a benefit. If I know an animal's binomial name I often know a variety of things about that species to give me a base knowledge and some insight to its care, behavior, etc. In no way am I saying that knowing the genus is like a care sheet, but it gives knowledge to base off of. Usually I can pretty quickly tell if it is communal, arboreal/terrestrial, what region it is found, likely approximate size, and even likely temperament.


This +1. This has helped me so much in other things, especially aquatics, when we used to get shipments of new undescribed species, immediately able to 'put' the animal somewhere in your head and know that it comes from here, is similar to X species etc. It's just a great base to have IMO.


----------



## Hatr3d (Apr 16, 2011)

Motorkar said:


> TarantulaByte: You know, technally tarantula is not corrct common name for  this genera? You know what is it called? Bird eater. First setlers that came to america saw this big spider who was eating a small huming brd and they called it bird eater. Tarantula was brought later in 19th century wich came with itallian emigration to the states. Tarantula is a species of a wolf spider wich origins is surrounding the town of Taranto in Italy.


_
Lycosa tarentula_ to be exact. Awesome spider, can be found especially in the south of italy, where I live. I'm always out to find them when the right time is near.

btw I don't think that's a _L. tarentula_ in your pic, more like an _Hogna_ species. They're pretty similar anyway.


----------



## Rue (Apr 16, 2011)

There are different levels to any hobby.  We may take enjoyment from some or all of it.

If you only have one T, and don't care about scientific names.  That's fine.

If you find the scientfic names and naming process interesting and useful...that's also fine.

I chose my 3 species of T's primarily as pets, and secondly so I can learn a bit about their biologies...what's the same, what's different, etc., up front and personal.  I have no interest in collecting all 900 + species of them or breeding them.  But I certainly don't expect everyone in the T hobby to have my exact interests either...why would I?


----------



## zonbonzovi (Apr 16, 2011)

Ry- just wanted to say, I thought it was a perfectly valid question & there ain't nothin' wrong with asking.  The search goon squad may disagree, but that is the nature of the forum beast & their intellectual gauntlet running. 

Missouri- you have a tough row to hoe, chief.  My suggestion, if you should happen to take it to heart, is to do a little more reading/listening & a lot less lip flappin'...or...not, in which case, Branson awaits!  Say hi to Yakov for me.


----------



## Formerphobe (Apr 16, 2011)

> ..if everyone uses the scientific names wouldn't that also make it the more commonly used name, right?


Yes.  And that is what the hobby is aiming at, commonly used scientific names that can be understood internationally with little to no confusion about which species is being discussed, bred, sold, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Croaton (Apr 16, 2011)

TaraculasByte said:


> ...




Get a fish if this is your mindset... as for the rest of the world, if they are as ignorant and uneducated as you are, I hope they do the same!    

If Tarantulas or any other living animal is going to be kept in captivity then I really hope there is a group of "nerds" to care for them properly.


----------



## Formerphobe (Apr 16, 2011)

> Get a fish


Ummm, do you not like fish?


----------



## Croaton (Apr 16, 2011)

lol I do actually but my point is they are simple by comparison.


----------



## NikiP (Apr 16, 2011)

Croaton said:


> lol I do actually but my point is they are simple by comparison.


IMO, tarantulas are way more simple if you don't factor in breeding.

If you think simple is slapping a goldfish or a betta in a bowl, then you don't know fish.


----------



## Croaton (Apr 16, 2011)

Yeah let's start talking about fish now... 

I would have used a rock for my example of a suitable pet for that guy if I knew there would be people picking apart the fish thing lol... jesus.

Forget it people, it's all over here


----------



## Formerphobe (Apr 16, 2011)

> lol I do actually but my point is they are simple by comparison.


What NikiP said...  probably even more varied and many more difficult to keep, and more so to breed.  And the scientific names involved... I shudder to think of it... (I used to keep "_botias_".  I see many of them have undergone significant taxonomic name and description changes...)


----------



## NikiP (Apr 16, 2011)

Formerphobe said:


> (I used to keep "_botias_".  I see many of them have undergone significant taxonomic name and description changes...)


And see! Right here is a perfect example for TaraculasByte. The need for scientific names does exist outside the tarantula hobby  

Other then my current mudskipper, I haven't seriously kept fish since '06 & knew exactly what botias were  I never kept them, but did keep Pangio kuhlii for a short term. Hateful little things.


----------



## Mojo Jojo (Apr 17, 2011)

Avicularia versicolor is Avicularia versicolor in all Romanized languages. As a hobbyist in the digital age, this is a good enough answer for me.

But here's another reason. There is a strong relationship between the scientific arachnid community and the hobby arachnid community. Because the science people already had a good naming scheme the hobbyists have adopted the same naming scheme through association. It has now become generally accepted as being part of the hobby. 

If you don't want to use scientific names with non-hobbyists, more power to you. You could get away with skipping common names and just use the word tarantula when having a conversation with your friend about about the neat tarantula that you just got at Petco. Likely, they will picture a Brachypelma smithi because they seem to get the most roles on tv and in the movies. And even if you have something else, it probably won't make a difference with your friend. 

But if you are going to come to a hobbyist/scientific forum because you want to know why your red knee tarantula isn't thriving you might not get any answers or you might get bad answers. Afterall one of my favorite tarantulas, Megaphobema mesomelas, has red knees, but their proper care would be detrimental to your Brachypelma smithi's health.


----------



## jbm150 (Apr 17, 2011)

The scientific names can be a little daunting in the beginning.  I'm from a science background and was used to scientific names for fish so I had something of a headstart but it still took some work.  Fortunately, I had an interest beyond "they're all just spiders" and knew that the more I was exposed to the names, the better they'd stick.  Took a little work but you're never too old to learn something new.  

TaraculasByte, its not about bringing our hobby to the mainstream.  If you want to talk about your tarantulas to layfolk, gauge your audience.  Use common names because most of the time, they aren't looking for a lecture on the biogeography of a species, keep it light and to the point.  But also realize some people are receptive to scientific names and actually take you more seriously if you sound like you know what you're talking about (hopefully you do).  I use both when I talk to people and if they push for it, will take the extra second to tell them the pitfalls of common names.

Anyways, as a complete aside, in the hobby, it's completely acceptable to use a few common names.  Thought it'd be fun to list them because quite honestly, this thread has pretty much run its course:

GBB or greenbottle blue - we know exactly what you're talking about.  These are probably the only iterations of the common name that are acceptable.  Species name is a bit cumbersome for regular usage

KB or king baboon - species name Pelinobius muticus is easier to say than previous name, but lots of people still use KB

Rosie
PZB
Any I'm missing?


----------



## Sam_Peanuts (Apr 17, 2011)

jbm150 said:


> Any I'm missing?


Don't forget about the OBT. Also, I have no idea what PZB stands for.

And personally, I find the usage of shortened scientific names like P. cancerides for example to be easier to remember than the common names which can be sometimes very similar between species.

I've had one for 7 years now and I always confuse the country of the common name with another one.

You can also shorten them even more in some cases and people will still know exactly what your talking about like if you use A. avic.


----------



## jbm150 (Apr 17, 2011)

Sam_Peanuts said:


> Don't forget about the OBT. Also, I have no idea what PZB stands for.
> 
> And personally, I find the usage of shortened scientific names like P. cancerides for example to be easier to remember than the common names which can be sometimes very similar between species.
> 
> ...


Ahh of course lol

PZB = pink zebra booty...i mean beauty 

In most cases, for brevity's sake, you can get away with the species name only and get your point across (i.e. "my regalis just ate a cricket"; "that lividum is giving me dirty looks"; "my pulchra is on its back, is it dying?")


----------



## High_Rolling_T (Apr 17, 2011)

Sam_Peanuts said:


> Don't forget about the OBT.


Actually, I find that when you say OBT, some people do know what you're talking about, but you'd be surprised how many people would be confused.  For one thing, you will never find a store labeling one an OBT(which in itself I've heard both mean Orange Bitey Thing and Orange Baboon Tarantula).  Most likely your common person would know it as a Sunburst baboon, Usambara starburst baboon, Orange sunburst tarantula, and some other combination of the above labels, lol.  Those are what I've always seen be used by both dealers and LPS and just people I know to have tarantulas but aren't really part of the online community. For example, if you check Ken the Bug Guy's website(as a well known dealer), you won't find OBT, but you will find Starburst Baboon


----------



## Formerphobe (Apr 17, 2011)

> In most cases, for brevity's sake, you can get away with the species name only and get your point across


Yup.  My daughters and I went to a museum yesterday that had an 'insect' exhibit that included some tarantulas.  Neither of my daughters supports or condones my T habit.  They have zero to minimal interest.  But, the museum had the _Brachypelma smithi_ labeled as _Euathlus smithii_ and my youngest daughter picked up on it.  (Made mama so proud! )  

"_Hey mom, they have the smithi labeled wrong!  Looks like a Brachy-ma-call-it smithi to me._"

Technically, _Euathlus_ is an obsolete genus placement...

As far as common names, I have seen the _B. smithi_ labeled more than one way: Mexican Red Knee, the most common, and Mexican Red Leg which is more usually applied to _Brachypelma emelia_.  When I think of all the tarantulas with red legs and red knees....  Yeah, best to use the scientific name, that way one knows exactly what species is at hand.  And even non-T people will pick up the 'jargon'.


----------



## esotericman (Apr 17, 2011)

Besides the obvious which has been stated, I'll throw in a couple of cents worth...

Firstly, the common or vulgar names are very singular in their usage.  I suspect if in the US we were to poll normal people (non-hobbyists/biologists) that we'd find _Aphonopelma hentzi_ probably has a dozen "common" names across it's range which is from Kansas to Texas.  I also suspect if you went to state or community "X" and told them to use vulgar name "Y" because they do in community "Z", they would tell you no way in "H".  This example is then taken a step farther when we cross country lines.  There is no feasible way to use common names when talking about organisms.  It is part of why the binomial system was created.

Now then, has anyone ever sat in a room with native Chinese or "any language other than your own native tongue" speakers when they're talking about biology?  They speak quickly, in their own own language, but then insert the binomial into the conversation.  The reason I use Chinese is because that language is not rooted in Greek or Latin like English, Spanish, French, Portuguese and German are.  Those speakers must learn to use words which sound NOTHING like anything they've ever had to say.  And some hobbyists, who do speak one of the derived languages have the self-centeredness to complain about learning the binomials!  It is just shocking anyone is so egocentric to not know there is a world outside of community "X".  This is particularly true on AB as it has an international membership.  This is also why Europeans do not have this argument, as many Europeans speak more than one language.  Assuming everyone speaks English... sheesh.

But to the aid of those who fret pronouncing the names, because that is often the only hurdle (learning two names for people is simple after all), there are pronunciation guides.

Here are two for example:

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

http://atshq.org/articles/beechwp2.html

You'll see that the roots of the binomial names often have a real meaning, which helps us remember them.  For example:
_
Avicularia versicolor_ literally means "pertaining to little bird" + "variegated"/"changing color".  This has far more meaning to myself than whatever asinine common names has been saddled on the species for this week.


In any case, we could discuss how to use binomials correctly, including in text, but that's not the point of this thread.  By learning the correct names, no one is proving they're better than anyone else, they're proving they know what species they're talking about in a mature community.  I am proud to see so many in our hobby so ready to do so.


----------



## TaraculasByte (Apr 17, 2011)

killy said:


> When I'm at fancy cocktail parties I like to swirl my glass and talk about handling my big hairy Chromatopelma cyaneopubescens.


 lmao...exactly

trust me, i understand whats going on here. you people want to feel like youve accomplished this great task of knowing all the scientific names. but why try and throw out all the more colorful names, that most people would be more attracted to? it makes no sense. the main point i tried to make earlier, was that tarantulas have been very unknown to me for the last 20yrs. im sorta pissed that i just now, at age 33, stumbled upon them. why is that? its because nobody is running around the world saying "chromatopelma cyaneopubescens", and it cracks me up the way you people think that abbreviating, or initialing these long words helps matters. that just makes it more confusing to what is what, to the average joe's. common names are what gave me the best visuals to what was what. sure some got a little confusing at times, but thats when i would use the scientific names to confirm what i was looking at (thats what they are for, confirmatation, not regular usage). but that was only for ten or so. i know for a fact, trying to put a visual with all the scientific names would have turned me off to the hobby faster than the speed of light. and im sure its happened to millions. 

dont fool yourselves into thinking you t-addicts are these big bad brave souls that play with spiders, and everybody else that isnt here, are just afraid. truth is, we/they hadnt heard about all of them yet. not many people know that a bee sting is worse than most tarantula bites. only people like you guys know that. (one of your secrets to help keep the T-club secluded)

just look at kenthebugguys site, does he ignore the common names? hell no, hes smarter than that. same goes with all the other t-dealer sites ive seen. they want normal people to start buying their T's, not just anal hobbyist's. 

like i was trying to point out before, i blame all of you for the reason it took me 20yrs to notice the hobby. but what i gathered from some of your comments, you dont care about the rest of the world catching on to your joyful t-world. like i said, secret codes to help keep them out. well guess what geeks....you have to share...HAHA



lmao @ motorkar....now they are all wolf spiders, not tarantulas? get outta here. im sure that you may be technically right, but who gives a damn....why try and confuse the hobby even more? lets just try to keep it simple so more people will want to join. sound good? 

the more people that join the "club", the more spiders in circulation, the more spiders, the cheaper theyll be, the cheaper theyll be, the more we can all have. make sense?

im sure many more people here are afraid to speak up against your little devoted mob of wanna be scientists, but dont worry normal people, i got your back.

here are some common names, lets see which ones DONT instantly bring an image to your brain when you read them.

orange baboon
mexican flame knee
cobalt blue
costa rican zebra
venezuelan sun tiger
goliath bird eater
green bottle blue
peruevian purple pinktoe
king baboon
gooty ornamental

.....should i keep going?


----------



## MrEMojo (Apr 17, 2011)

@TaraculasByte

The words you write show ignorance.
Do yourself a favor and listen to more informed people

And regarding what you were saying about expanding the hobby. 
I'm just speaking for myself when I say this, but I personally don't neccesarily want the hobby to expand. For example, a P. metallica while it is always going to be beautiful, will they be as prized when everyone and their mother has one?
Just a thought


----------



## LV-426 (Apr 17, 2011)

My 2 cents, if the common name is well established ( king baboon, venezuelan suntiger, Hatian brown) we as intellegent humans know what T is is being talked about and should be acceptable. The owner should be responsible for knowing what species he/she owns. If you can narrow down the genus then ID the T as an ex: Acanthoscurria sp. or Phormictopus sp.


----------



## NikiP (Apr 17, 2011)

I feel it needs repeating...



NikiP said:


> Your arguement is invalid.
> 2) How many people start out googling tarantulas, seeing the scientific names, & get scared off? Probably no where near as many that buy a G. rosea at their LPS then go looking on the world wide web to find out why their G. rosea is on their back only to come across a board like this then proceed to buy a million tarantulas online that aren't found in the majority of pet stores.
> 
> 3) Are you involved in very many hobbies?
> ...


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 17, 2011)

Okay.  I've trimmed some nonsense and handed out some infractions.  You may proceed with the original discussion or drop it .. but continuing along the same path the thread was taking is not an acceptable option.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## fatich (Apr 18, 2011)

i am always against using common names even if i can not correctly pronounce them.
in written language i also prefer not to use abbreviations like P.murinus,G.rosea. i always try to write full scientific names like Pterinochilus murinus , Grammostola rosea.
Also some people write the scientific names wrong,i think when we see we should correct them,because if we do not correct them this person will continue to write it wrong.

That's my view point.


----------



## Falk (Apr 18, 2011)

Rue said:


> Since it's on topic...I just want to add...it's funny that we insist on using the correct scientific name (vs. the confusing common name/s), but then can't be bothered using the correct presentation...
> 
> Genus is capitalized, species is not, and they are _italicised_ OR can also be underlined (although this is becoming obsolete, you still see it a lot in older material, and is handy when handwriting)...
> 
> ...


I agree with you, the scientific name should be spelled correctly, not a B. Smithi or Avic Avic, B Albo etc etc

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 AM ----------

*TaraculasByte* let me ask you this: What is a Goliath bird eater? Is it a _T. stirmi_ , _T. apophysis_ or is it a _T. blondi_?

If you are not interested in learing about this hobby then leave it. To learn all the basics you need to know the scientific names.


----------



## paassatt (Apr 18, 2011)

fatich said:


> Also some people write the scientific names wrong,i think when we see we should correct them,because if we do not correct them this person will continue to write it wrong.


Not only that person, but also people who are new to the hobby and come here for accurate information. It's possible to tactfully correct someone's spelling for accuracy's sake.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 18, 2011)

fatich said:


> in written language i also prefer not to use abbreviations like P.murinus,G.rosea. i always try to write full scientific names like Pterinochilus murinus , Grammostola rosea.


Good point.  Unless the genus is already understood, using an abbreviation can cause confusion.  There are lots of genera that begin with "P", "G", etc., and it's annoying to have to play guessing games as to which one the writer is referring to.  However, once you've established that you are discussing _Pterinochilus_ or _Grammostola_, abbreviating it to _P._ or _G._ makes sense, and is easier on both the writer and the reader.


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 18, 2011)

Well, time to make myself even less popular.  I feel that there is some merit to common names and several shortcomings to the scientific names.

I'll start with the latter.  Firstly, it needs to be understood that taxonomy is not (at least anymore) an end unto itself.  At the academic/research level, the end goal of taxonomic work is to better understand the world around us.  Separating species x and species y allows us to understand distribution, radiation, historic geological events etc. etc. etc.  As such, the system of labeling species that is in use by the world of arachnology can be seen as a current best understanding of the current distribution of biological diversity and a story of how it got there.  I won't go into it further here.  If anyone wants an interesting take on the whole thing I would suggest looking for papers by Kirk Fitzhugh as he has some very interesting ideas.  That digression aside, the point is that the understanding of the world is going to be changing and that the resultant identification of specimens in museum collections will change from time to time.  These changes are usually a result of a LOT of underlying work and rely heavily on having good collection locale data.  Remember that this is all about what goes on in the real world .. if two animals have similar features but happen to exist on opposite sides of the world then you can be assured there is no gene flow (unless there is a mechanism for travel .. birds or whales or whatnot).  This is an extremely superficial summary but will do for the purposes of my explanation. 

So now we move to the hobby world.  The first thing to note is that for the most part we don't have a collection locale on our animals.  There are exceptions, of course, where the animals were collected by "one of us."  There are also certain circumstances where the entire CB hobby stock has come from a very few wild caught individuals of known locality and history.  If we assume (rightly or wrongly) that no further specimens have been collected then we have a collection locale of the founding population.

Then there is the issue of identification by a hobbyist.  The first thing that is clear is that only a slice of the hobby population has access to the tools, expertise etc. to ID a specimen off of literature alone.  These people also usually understand the limitation of this methodology.  The problem is that even if such a person does an identification, the ID tends to move on but the uncertainty does not.  The uncertainty is healthy.  The uncertainty is important to that ID being a reflection of reality.  This concept, however, is poorly understood by a lot of the hobby and consequently the uncertainty isn't only lost .. but this loss is considered a GOOD thing.        

There is also the issue of the degree of accessible difference that is available to those of us in the hobby.  Tarantulas are a fairly homogeneous grouping of animals.  In general, you don't get the huge variation you get in, for example, some sorts of true spider.  A lot of this has to do with what is apparently a relative dearth of accessible traits of sexual selection in the Theraphosids.  In many other groups you get either extreme examples of sexual traits (which will inevitably diverge in separated populations = different in different species) -- either visual like bird feathers, audible like frog calls or even behavioural like the dance of some jumping and wolf spiders.  This sort of obvious cue is more-or-less missing from our Theraphosids.  I do sometimes muse what would happen if we all had piezoelectric sensors hooked up to our computers.  The tapping patterns of mating individuals might give us more clues than all of the patterning cues combined.  Anyhow, so you lack those cues and also, of course, there is a lack of specialization in other areas.  At least you guys have silk types, patterns, use etc.  Us scorpion folks don't even have that to help us with one of the most conserved body plans in the animal kingdom.  

So where does this leave us?  It leaves us with the realization that ALL of our collections have a good degree of uncertainty within them.  That is fine .. but becomes problematic when we look at that degree of uncertainty as compared to the uncertainty in the academic world.  I know scorpions.  I have microscopes, callipers etc.  I have preserved hobby specimens I can dissect.  I have something like 2000 scorpion-related peer-reviewed papers on my hard drive and boxes of printed ones to boot.  Yet the uncertainty in my collection is still above that of the collections of preserved specimens in msueums upon which the scientific names are based.  The situation becomes compounded as you go through the hobby and start to deal with people of various taxonomic understanding (there are some fantastic breeders out there who produce a lot but will readily admit they don't understand the literature), access to resources and know-how etc. and specimens of unknown origin .. something which is problematic to everybody.  Even the academic world has problems towards these ends.  I know of one project currently underway to sequence the genetic code of poecilotheria based on hobby specimens.  The conclusions one will be able to draw from that finished project are effectively zilch.  Yet the availability of information to that investigator is well beyond the information available to most of us.

So now how this relates to the original question.  There are problems with common names, to be sure.  I'm not going to mention them because they have been well hashed out in this thread already.  End conclusion: common names are tragically flawed and they don't really give you a good idea of what they are labeling.  Fair enough.  

On the other hand, however, we have, what, tens or hundreds of thousands of animals being kept by hobbyists at the moment.  And a certain portion of those will be labeled with scientific names.  And a LOT of those will be mislabeled because the hobby, as a whole, does not have the skill to consistently label things correctly or the overall understanding of the underlying concepts to appreciate the inherit flaw in how we have been doing it to date.  This is where I have lost some of my scorn for common names over the last while (though I still don't know any of them).

The thing is, if someone comes into the scorpion forum and posts that they have an "Asian Forest Scorpion" then I have a pretty good idea of what they have.  They have a probably largish black sorpion.  Probably a Heterometrus sp. but, depending on where they got it, potentially a Pandinus .. I've even see Opsthacanthus or Hadogenese bought as "Asian Forest Scorpions."  So, while the tag is somewhat useless for actually identification of the animal I have come to appreciate that the uncertainty is effectively outlined and in bold.  It is out there for everyone to see.  The hobby responds to that.  They will ask for a picture or whatever to get a somewhat better idea of what it is.  Or they will assume Heterometrus sp. (rightly or wrongly) and give care advice that is, more or less, about right for the entire genus.  

By contrast, if someone comes in and says that they have "Heterometrus spinnifer" then it is a far more precise but not necessarily more accurate label.  That is now a very specific animal which may or may not be what they actually have.  The problem is, even if one realizes the inherit issues with labels in the pet trade, it is harder to keep your brain open to it being something completely different.  You might at least keep some skepticism that it is H.spinifer but you will either consciously or unconsciously probably generalize to "Heterometrus sp." in your mind and proceed from there without further considering that the uncertainty extends to genus or even family.   

So there we go.  After a lot of rambling back to my original comment.  Common names .. certainly some common names .. may be of some use given that they carry the uncertainty with them.  They may be lacking as labels but they are honest about the shortcomings  .. at least to those of us who know that their nature.  Scientific names are just about right for the academic world (there are shortcomings there but that is anther topic) but our use of them leaves much to be desired.  While we could better our practices as a whole, there are some problems that are inherit and not going to be easily overcome.    

So where does that leave us?  How important is it that our hobby specimens mirror those in the wild?  Certainly our rearing methods do not allow for re-introduction down the road.  What is the importance/signficance of "species" to the hobby?  What are our underlying motivations as a whole?  How do we increase the usefulness of our labeling?  

I don't have any of the answers, though I spend quite a bit of time pondering these thing.  I'd love for people to give some input.

I would note that a good first step would be for people to understand and embrace sp. and cf. ---> if there is uncertainty then put it out there.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Croaton (Apr 18, 2011)

Wow... excellent point Dave... great article there too!  

I suppose that would be one way that the use of scientific names would not be so accurate... I never considered the fact that there are probably hundreds or more specimens out there labeled with an incorrect scientific name!

That would definitely cause MORE confusion when offering help for a particular species.  This makes me wonder how often that goes on...

In reality I think what we all need to do is remember that human error is common.  The use of scientific names is still more appropriate I believe, but it does open my eyes to the fact that they can't offer a 100% confirmation of what animal is being referred to.


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 18, 2011)

I would guess the ratio of "properly" labeled vs. inproperly labeled (with "properly" referring to congruence with the academic world rather than endorsing the academic understanding as well) is optimistically 50:50.  Fortunately, in many cases this doesn't really "matter."  For many species there is either an effectively bottlenecked captive population or a restricted area from which they are collected.  So for most of those, the label would be either right for 99% of the animals in captivity or wrong but in a uniform manner for the same 99%.  In other words, the animals are of the same species .. whatever that might be. 

I know that I have many specimens in my collection that I will honesty say I *think* are this or that but I tend to include my disclaimer.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## esotericman (Apr 18, 2011)

I suppose the logic of your arguments will resonate with many people.  Those maybe why the ATS and AAS used to keep a committee on common names going.  The accepted 2003 list is still on the ATS site:

http://atshq.org/articles/acn5.pdf

Many species have made it into the hobby since then, and thus are not on there, but even the accepted yet dated vulgar names were never used consistently.  

I will say thank you for presenting your thoughts in a well thought out and written form, even though I disagree completely.


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 18, 2011)

esotericman said:


> I disagree completely.


Completely?  So you feel there are no problems with how we use scientific names in the hobby? 

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Lorum (Apr 18, 2011)

skinheaddave said:


> Completely?  So you feel there are no problems with how we use scientific names in the hobby?


There are problems (_e.g._ the so-called _Avicularia metallica_... can someone really claim they have an _Avicularia metallica_? Or should all of them be _Avicularia_ cf. _metallica_ or just _Avicularia sp._ "insert whatever you want here"? This is just one example of lots I can think of). I understand your point, and I really think that the use of scientific names in the hobby should reflect the uncertainty related to the organisms kept in captivity as belonging to one or other group.


----------



## Falk (Apr 18, 2011)

Yes, _cf._ is rarely used. I have pointed out the _A. metallica_ thing with _cf._ but no one cares.


----------



## Rue (Apr 18, 2011)

esotericman said:


> ....  The accepted 2003 list is still on the ATS site:
> 
> http://atshq.org/articles/acn5.pdf ...


Thanks for that!  I was looking for it.:worship:


----------



## Kirk (Apr 18, 2011)

skinheaddave said:


> Well, time to make myself even less popular.  I feel that there is some merit to common names and several shortcomings to the scientific names.


Excellent, thoughtful points, Dave. Understanding the fallibility of a system of communication goes a long way toward greater precision. And knowing that formal, biological systematics names are only as useful (in communication) as the (fallible) empirical bases for their implementation creates a healthy dose of perpetual skepticism.


----------



## lord lionheart (Apr 18, 2011)

As a beginner here's my perspective and a story.
I have 3 T's ( G. rosea, C. cyanopubescens & B. Boehmi) and am still learning the scientific names of other T's.
 Last week we stopped at a local pet store and I bought a 'pink toe' on sight and going from memory, hoping that it was an A. versicolor, since it had a bluish tinge, (as well as very pink toes, which was wrong). Upon getting it home and doing further research I of course quickly found out it's not an A. versicolor. I am now confused if the spider is actually an A. avicularia or an A. azuraklaasi. I'm leaning towards the latter.
The point is had the spider been correctly labelled with it's scientific class this would not have happened. Of course my impulsivity, inexperience and poor memory of how a A. versicolor juvenile look were also to blame. I was a little disappointed the juvenile will not grow into the colorful A. versicolor as I first thought, but am glad to have another in my collection. 
Scientific names rather than generic names that identify various T's would obviously be the way to go ( as long as they're correctly identified )


----------



## ZergFront (Apr 18, 2011)

Fran said:


> SPECIALLY on the Classifieds section.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 AM ----------
> 
> ...


 Yeah, the common names on T Chat don't bother me NEARLY as much as on the classifieds. When scientific names are used AND put into alphabetical order, I find the specimens I want a lot quicker. If there's a long list of species for sale under common names or not in an order, I don't look at that ad anymore. Hit the back button..

---------- Post added at 07:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------




TaraculasByte said:


> Think about it, do dogs have strange scientific names? And if they do, how many people would be able to name the breeds off hand, or spell, or pronounce. Very few im sure. But look at how popular dogs are throughout the world, and how many people have pretty basic knowledge of most dog breeds.
> 
> Twenty years ago, if you would have asked me what a tarantula was, I would have said a very big spider. While not having any clue, that there was close to 800 different tarantula species. If you asked ten people at random today, “name a type of tarantula” you’d be lucky if one person knew their was more than one type. Why is this? Its because you people don’t use the common names. Ive never heard anyone talk about common names of tarantulas, up until six months ago when I started to research the purchase of T's. To me and most others, a tarantula is just a tarantula. Just a big spider. Im sure if there common names were used more frequently in the past, I would have heard of all the different species years ago. “wow look! A Mexican red knee” or “o-my god, look how big that goliath bird eater is” do you really think the average person is going to want to memorize all these scientific names? “hey look, what a beautiful brachypelma smithi” or “hey look at this huge theraphosa blondi” and those are the easier ones to say. But see if any one has heard of the white collared tarantula, I doubt they’ll say “o you mean the eupalaestrus weijenberghi”
> now if you went out on to the streets, and asked people to name a type of spider, what would they say? tarantula, black widow, daddy long leg? NOBODY is going to say the scientic name. why? its because its like speaking a foreign language.
> ...


 Actually, every dog breed you've ever seen - Jack Russell terrier to the Great Dane are all the same species, Canis familiaris (I spelled that without even looking it up. Some are hard but not impossible if you actually take the time to try) I do learn to spell scientific names a LOT quicker than I do pronouncing them. Also, I have heard of reptile owners calling their colubrids as such.

 Using common names to find the _correct_ species in an ad or caresheet is extremely tedious because of how vague they are. I've seen tiger rump used in many species; P.irminia, Acanthogonatus francki (not even a tarantula), A.minatrix, Cyriocosmus elegans, Cyclosternum fasciatus, Haplopelma longipes, Cyriopagopus paganus and these are just the ones I remember.

 EDIT : After I look at my post, I think Dave and Lorum couldn't have said it better. X-D


----------



## BrynWilliams (Apr 19, 2011)

I personally favour the use of scientific names, used appropriately, as it reduces some of the ambiguity (note not all) when dealing with suppliers and or when selling/loaning.

This issue was raised recently when a friend of mine was attempting to acquite a P murinus MM, was sent an 'OBT normal colour form' from an unknowing chap, and on inspection it turned out to be a P chordatus. 

I agree that the scientific names are not always 100% correct and do change from time to time, however, that's science! Science is the first to admit error, or lack of understanding, that's what makes the pursuit of knowledge all the more exciting. Thus I quite like the scientific names, even if they're not 100% correct and do change, it just adds a little bit more flavour to this evolving hobby. 

My 2p anyway.


----------



## esotericman (Apr 19, 2011)

skinheaddave said:


> Completely?  So you feel there are no problems with how we use scientific names in the hobby?
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave


No, not completely, but I just don't feel like writing a textbook on my entire opinion.  As a biologist, I have a set of opinions, but I've also worked in pet stores as a hobbyist for a long time.  As you pointed out, it's not exactly a cut and dry issue.  

In the bird world, they not only embrace common names, but have accepted designations for all North American birds, and rules to come to those labels.  _Falco sparverius_, or American Kestrel is AMKE, and everyone knows it and uses it, from the lowest of birders to rescue groups to the Cornell Bird Lab.  I guess the more charismatic birds have more support for accepting nomenclature in place than what the tiny number of arachnologists can generate.  Breene was the chair of the committee with the AAS and he's passed away, but nearly all of the others are still working in arachnids and publishing, but I doubt they have the time to work on what is still probably deemed a waste of time.

The system is not infallible, that of the binomial nomenclature system, but it beat the living day lights out of common name usage.


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 19, 2011)

Standardized common names work fairly well for birds largely, I think, as a result of the relatively small number of species and the more obvious visual differences between them.  That and, as you suggest, the larger numbers of bird enthusiasts and the resultant mass organization of the combined birder/researcher community.  The system does fall down with some regularity .. but the failings there tend to be simply translations at 1:1 from the academic world to the "hobby" world.  

In fact, we already use "common names" with spiders in terms of larger groups with some success.  There are widows, recluse spiders, long-jawed orb weavers etc.  I don't think it is accidental that the deliniation of the common names that "work" and used in the popular press etc. falls roughly along the lines of groupings that show readily differentiated visual cues.  Of course this is a sort of hybrid system and has many flaws.  "Daddy long legs" comes to mind, as does a term like "funnel web" or "house spider" which get thrown onto several different groupings.    

While the attemps of the ATS, AAS etc. to create translational tables from some sort of standardized common name to scientific names at the species level is, in my opinion, better left on the back burner as it is something of a futile attempt (for reasons outlined above by others, yourself and myself).  At the genus or family level (and in specific instances at the specific level) it makes a bit more sense at times and I know there is some debate along those lines still going on.  

Effectively, however, such a standard doesn't actually improve the situation in the hobby or the binding of that world to the academic world.  It merely adds a second, parallel, group of terms which adopts all the faults of the current use of scientific names (mislableing, over-confidence etc.) in its attempts to shed the problems with the common names.

I still maintain that common names are not as deserving of our scorn as many people think.  The fact that they are so wishy-washy in their meaning accurately reflects the fact that the users of those names, on the whole, are just as wishy-washy in their ID.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Fran (Apr 19, 2011)

Dave;
I think, and please correct me if Im wrong, since I have no experience with scorpions, that common names _might _ work better with them, since seems like a lot of them are area related names, more than individual characteristics. For example, as you said, "Asian Forest etc".

With tarantulas...I just dont see any good thing coming from common names.
You are correct, if someone has not the popper ID on an individual , but its selling it as, for example, _Theraphosa blondi_, instead of _Goliath birdeater_, it is closing the fence into a specific spider making the mistake even bigger.  Otherwise one can think ok, "Goliath birdeater"...Maybe he means *Theraphosa stirmi*,or_ blondi_...or even _apophysis_.

Correct.
 But from my standpoint, since the error will always exist,and I wont label a spider if Im not quite sure it is what is supossed to be,(let alone breeding) common names *when used by common  hobbists in the hobby* it has absolutely no "ID security" whatsoever. It can be pretty much anything.
When someone is using scientific nomenclature, at least it shows a little shine of light. showing that the hobbist might have a better grasp of what he has than when calling a spider "Giant birdeater".

I hope I made my point across.


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 19, 2011)

Fran said:


> When someone is using scientific nomenclature, at least it shows a little shine of light. showing that the hobbist might have a better grasp of what he has than when calling a spider "Giant birdeater".


Unfortunately I think that all too commonly that is a false light.  In many cases it would be a case that someone googled "Goliath Bird Eater" and found it was T.blondi or assumed T.blondi because that was the only one of which they had heard.  Then add in the cases where they either misread, misunderstood or misused the literature/guidelines out there and so have mis-IDed their specimen.  

As you know, one of the more useful tools available to us are the dichotomous keys.  They are available for many taxonomic groupings in the literature.  If used correctly they can produce a tentative ID.  The specimen can then be compared to the original species description to see if it matches.  In many cases, that second part of the process is skipped and the results of the key are relied upon.  

Making matters worse, often times the keys are removed from the source document and presented online to hobbyists as self-contained units.  It gets even worse when the whole of the key is dropped and only one or two features are used.  I am guilty of this myself, of course.  I will often assume that something is one of three species and differentiate accordingly.  I have often given people the advice to check feature A or feature B and that would give them a result.  I think this is somewhat excusable but we have to realize that we are then introducing further uncertainty into our IDs and these are not reflected in our presentation of them. 

All of this, of course, is compounded by the fact that we have no collection locales. 

So are common names the solution?  Of course not.  I'm not suggesting they are.  What I am suggesting is that this "scientific name good, common name bad" is a false dichotomy.  So many times someone will post something like they have a "Goliath Bird Eater" and they will quickly be pounced upon that they should lable it "T.blondi" instead .. when for all we know it is an L.parahybana!  By contrast, if they put that they have a "T.blondi" we are more succeptable to beliving that that light is real.  I am saying that "Goliath Bird Eater" is more honest about its naivitee when used by the same person under the same circumstances as when they may mistakenly say "T.blondi"

Once again, I'm all ears for solutions or thoughts on this matter.  In particular, what can we do to improve the use of the existing academic framework by the average hobbyist?  Nobody is suggesting that we are or can be perfect.  Everyone is going to mis-ID something at some point because we simply don't have the resources necessary to prevent that error (access to the holotype + collection locale of our specimen is a pretty safe bet).  Still, I think we need to do a LOT better than we are now before we can claim our use of the scientific nomenclature on the whole to be a more precise practice.  

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Fran (Apr 19, 2011)

skinheaddave said:


> Unfortunately I think that ....
> Dave


Absolutely agree.
It is not easy...I would just wish there would be a more specific and "uniform" way of naming the individuals using common names.(in the hobby)
Thats relying on the common people, and I have very little faith on that.


----------



## jbm150 (Apr 19, 2011)

I do see that as a good point Dave, thank you for sharing all of that.  We hold that scientific names will maintain the purity of species but it may not truly be the case when we can't say for sure exactly what species we're dealing with to begin with.  Is the Hysterocrates gigas I bought labeled as such really a gigas...or a crassipes?  Or something else?  So, so we do a 180 and stop hobby breeding? Or hold those who breed to actually key out their stock first?  I dunno, I don't see all that happening but it's definitely something to keep in mind.  I still maintain that scientific names are the vastly better option.  There aren't really that many species and it isn't hard to learn them, definitely not like birds (HOW many warblers are there???)


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 19, 2011)

jbm150 said:


> So, so we do a 180 and stop hobby breeding?


A very valid question which goes back to an earlier post of mine.  Our rearing practices are such that re-introduction to the wild is basically impossible.  The argument that part of our hobby is conserving pure species for re-introduction is a dubious one at best.  We need to accept that our breedings are, on the whole, going to fall outside of what occurs in nature.  At best, we are going to be breeding individuals of a species which might come from different parts of a naturally occuring cline.  We either remove large numbers from the wild or end up with a founding effect.  At worst, we unknowingly create hybrids.  

There are, of course, some checks here.  The chance of succesfully reproducing two similar looking but ultimately different animals is reduced from that of two of the same species.  I wonder, for example, how many unsuccessful "tiger rump" breedings (including my own attempts) are a result of different species or even genera being confused as conspecifics.  Still, at times it is likely going to happen in even quite well managed collections and it will undoubtedly happen a lot more in the collections of those newer to the hobby or less informed etc.  

I don't think we will or should stop breeding.  Certainly what we have as a hobby "works" insofar as we have a much broader range of "species" available now, we have established networks to facilitate breeding, selling, trading etc.  To what degree does it matter if the captive population of "species X" is actually akin in genetic composition and variability to the actual wild population of species X?  At what point, then, does our "scientific" lableing system become a mirror or parody of the academic world  -- in which case it actually becomes far more rigorous in terms of being able to succesfully ID group A from group B but loses much of its meaning as it relates to similar animals in the wild.  

Part of this really pivots around what we aim to get out of the hobby individually or as a whole.  That, I suspect, is the topic for another thread. 

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## esotericman (Apr 20, 2011)

skinheaddave said:


> Standardized common names work fairly well for birds largely, I think, as a result of the relatively small number of species and the more obvious visual differences between them.  That and, as you suggest, the larger numbers of bird enthusiasts and the resultant mass organization of the combined birder/researcher community.  The system does fall down with some regularity .. but the failings there tend to be simply translations at 1:1 from the academic world to the "hobby" world.


Over 900 species in North America and you've never tried to ID sparrows or warblers.   

It is the "powers that be" and numbers of people who are involved.  If the AAS, ATS, AB and everyone showed up for a "congress/conference" we'd maybe scrape together 1/10th the numbers.

The cool thing about SHD is that his "arguments" sound like exercises in logic which are taught in universities.  Sadly, and this is NO insult to him, I can not recall which logical approach he's taking, but the points always seem "logical".  If you nibble away at a system, eventually the entire system could be argued to be completely useless.  

Thinking is a good exercise, more people should do it.


----------



## jbm150 (Apr 20, 2011)

esotericman said:


> If you nibble away at a system, eventually the entire system could be argued to be completely useless


I don't think, and maybe I'm wrong, that's his intent.  I think he's just putting a spotlight on some of the weaknesses in the system for the purpose of discussion and to reign us binomial name-thumpers in a bit.  

Back to the original discussion, I'd like to reiterate a point I made before: knowing your audience.  I think common names are good for talking to people outside the hobby; using scientific names can be a little intimidating and maybe even a bit elitist.  But regular users in this and other T forums have an expectation for new members to learn the language.  To come here and attempt to change our ways strikes of trying to "dumb us down," if you will.  For many of us, it's not just about keeping a big, hairy spider. It's an extended, interactive lesson in biology, a continuing education.  We're protective of the hobby because we see what happens when "outsiders" keep tarantulas: poor husbandry skills and ailing animals.  So the education is part of the equation if you keep tarantulas and come to this forum to interact with other keepers.  If you aren't taking the time to learn their names, are you taking the time to keep them properly?  If you want to be taken seriously here, use scientific names.  For the sake of the audience, if nothing else.


----------



## paassatt (Apr 20, 2011)

jbm150 said:


> I don't think, and maybe I'm wrong, that's his intent.  I think he's just putting a spotlight on some of the weaknesses in the system for the purpose of discussion and to reign us binomial name-thumpers in a bit.
> 
> Back to the original discussion, I'd like to reiterate a point I made before: knowing your audience.  I think common names are good for talking to people outside the hobby; using scientific names can be a little intimidating and maybe even a bit elitist.  But regular users in this and other T forums have an expectation for new members to learn the language.  To come here and attempt to change our ways strikes of trying to "dumb us down," if you will.  For many of us, it's not just about keeping a big, hairy spider. It's an extended, interactive lesson in biology, a continuing education.  We're protective of the hobby because we see what happens when "outsiders" keep tarantulas: poor husbandry skills and ailing animals.  So the education is part of the equation if you keep tarantulas and come to this forum to interact with other keepers.  If you aren't taking the time to learn their names, are you taking the time to keep them properly?  If you want to be taken seriously here, use scientific names.  For the sake of the audience, if nothing else.


My friend, you summed it up perfectly. Know your audience, and know your scientific names.


----------



## AbraxasComplex (Apr 20, 2011)

I just have to point out that as a 5 year old, along with many others in my generation Dinosaurs were massively interesting. Interesting enough in fact that some how we magically learned all the latin names. At that age we either already knew the genus name, the species name, or in many cases both.

Here are some examples (names in Bold are the ones myself and nearly every other child I knew could recite):

_*Triceratops* horridus
*Tyrannosaurus rex*
*Brachiosaurus* altithorax
*Velociraptor* mongoliensis_


Need I go on? 

My point is, no matter the uncertainty pertaining to the species currently in the trade, if a 5 year old can memorize a few dozen species (and believe me I had), than a full grown adult should not be cumbersomed by this intellectually daunting task...


----------



## Kirk (Apr 20, 2011)

esotericman said:


> If you nibble away at a system, eventually the entire system could be argued to be completely useless.





jbm150 said:


> I don't think, and maybe I'm wrong, that's his intent.  I think he's just putting a spotlight on some of the weaknesses in the system for the purpose of discussion and to reign us binomial name-thumpers in a bit.


There's a substantial contingent of professional systematists who find the current international nomenclatural system in need of overhaul or replacement. And just like any discussion of formal versus common names, the common denominator is one's desired level of precision in communication. But the extent of that precision is contingent on one's goal in communicating a subject, and the conceptual framework within which they're operating. In the realm of hobby, as opposed to systematics, I'd expect communication protocols to be less constrained when it comes to justification.


----------



## Rue (Apr 20, 2011)

...while I'm all for scientific names...I do have to agree that for chit-chat with intereted friends, I use the common names...

For them 'Singapore Blue' actually is meaningful...ie. location, colour.  Same with 'Brazilian Black' and Venezuelan Sun Tiger'


----------



## Redneck (Apr 20, 2011)

I found some of the readings in this thread to be, quite interesting... 

We who use the scientific names are hiding the hobby...  Really? I mean, I always thought EVERYONE had access to the internet. Then they could research it for themselves. :?

When I first got into the hobby, I started with scorpions... Never used the "common names". Maybe I did for the P. imp... I started with a C. vitattus. One I found locally, got me interested.

Then, on this site, I found out about Ts... It lead me to get one. Of course, it was the all so common G. rosea. After getting her, and watching her. I started researching more and more about Ts... I used common names at first. 
Okay, now, I want you to guess where that got me, and what kind of legit information I got researching for "common names"? NOWHERE! 

I could find a little bit here and there. But nothing concrete. However, when I started using "scientific name", I found alot of information for the most of the species I had been keeping, or was interested in keeping.

I started learning all the "scientific names". I used them with everyone, people in the hobby, and people that are not in the hobby. Why? Because, its USEFULL information! People in the hobby understand why its usefull, and people outside the hobby, if they ever get in the hobby, they will already know that the use of "scientific names" ARE important.

I often get asked how I know so much about tarantulas. Its a very simple answer. I do my RESEARCH! In doing said research, I learned the "scientific names"... 

*Being educated, is NOT being an elitist... If someone thinks that, then you are a fool!* 

I am a proud user of "scientific names", will always use them, and wont change. I wont even buy from someone who lists their Ts under a "common name". They have a huge list under "common names". Well, they are to lazy to learn what each animals "scientific name" is, then well, I dont want to know how they keep their animals. Because they are obviously to lazy to research how they should properly be housed!

Point to be made... *DONT BE LAZY, LEARN ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF THE ANIMALS YOU KEEP, OR PLAN TO KEEP!*


----------



## skinheaddave (Apr 20, 2011)

esotericman said:


> Over 900 species in North America and you've never tried to ID sparrows or warblers.


Actually, I've logged a good number of hours banding under the tutilage of a couple of Bird Studies Canda folks.  Sparrows aren't that hard in my area but warblers are a pain.  Compared to the number of IDed North America Spider species (we're somewhere in the 3k range now, aren't we?) that is relatively small (not counting the countless as-of-yet-un-IDed) .. and once again I would point to the nature of accessible features.  At no time during banding did I have to dissect the genitals of a bird to determine its ID.  There are serious barriers to us as a group attempting to create a 1:1 system beween the scientific and common nomenclature.  While it is true that this system for birds exists largely as a result of the long history of "birding" as a venture and the sheer number of participants, it is naive to suggest that all we lack is the numbers.    



> Sadly, and this is NO insult to him,


Certainly.  I have no idea why anyone would think that an accusation of playing games would be considered an insult.  This isn't about passing philosophy 101 (which I did with flying colours, BTW).  This is about taking some time out from what we do to actually analyze our more basic assumptions.   And yes, my arguments are based on my observations and logic.  What should I base them on?  I'm not a very good demogogue. 



> eventually the entire system could be argued to be completely useless.


That is, ultimately, a conclusion that might be reasonably drawn for certain aspects of the hobby.  Certainly in segments where the academic world is far from having sorted out the taxonomic groups in question.  In seeking to evaluate systems, it is often useful not to reject conclusions just because they are inconvenient or because there is no solution.  One can then, of course, keep using a less-than-perfect solution because nothing better exists.  I certainly don't think we have anything better for the hobby at the moment than binomial nomenclature.  That doesn't mean we can't aknolwedge its inadequacies, though, and become less dogmatic in our treatment of the subject.    



jbm150 said:


> I think he's just putting a spotlight on some of the weaknesses in the system for the purpose of discussion and to reign us binomial name-thumpers in a bit.


I don't think my standpoint could be more eloquently summarized.  Thank you. 



> regular users in this and other T forums have an expectation for new members to learn the language.


I certainly wouldn't contest this.  I do wish that this education was accompanied by more information on the underlying system, though, so that people could understand better what they were involved with.  To be fair, though, despite reading all the literature etc. etc., I don't think I gained my understanding of the system as it is until I was spending time in museum collections looking over hundreds and hundreds of scorpions from Florida in alcohol trying to tease out what was going on.  You can argue as to how deep my understanding of the situation is .. suffice it to say that it is deeper now than it was before.   Exposing everyone to that sort of experience is, of course, impossible.  Attempting to communicat the net result of such experiences is .. problematic.  



> For many of us, it's not just about keeping a big, hairy spider.


Most definitely.  And I would like to add that I don't consider the situation universally hopeless in all aspects.  Certainly there are parts of the hobby (both in respect to the participants and certain types of animals) for which the whole thing works much better than it does for other people and taxonomic groups.  There are quite a few people out there who are stradling the academic and hobby worlds quite admerably.  Of course there are others still who think they are but overestimate their understanding (which is where more honest labels .. sp. and cf. etc. would be appreciated).  Some will remember I gave a presentation at the '06 Acon about the role of amateurs in scientific research.  Not a great presentation, I don't think, but I would think that gives me some credibility when I add that I'm not suggesting the appropriate use of the scientific nomenclature is completely out of reach of us lowly hobbyists.  



AbraxasComplex said:


> At that age we either already knew the genus name, the species name, or in many cases both.


Very good point.  Certainly learning the names isn't that hard for the most part (though spelling can be problematic for me .. and it took me a while to get Apistobuthus pterygocercus).  As someone who can't remember the common names for almost any animal in his collection, I am right with you on this point.  That being said, we at 5 years old weren't actually being asked to apply the names to anything more than drawings in books and certainly weren't attempting to breed true populations out of available specimens.   



Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Lorum (Apr 20, 2011)

Redneck said:


> Point to be made... *DONT BE LAZY, LEARN ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF THE ANIMALS YOU KEEP, OR PLAN TO KEEP!*


While I understand your point, I also think that no one can learn about every aspect of tarantulas. Also I can say, without fear of being wrong, that you can't formally (_i.e._ using taxonomic tools other than, maybe, general coloration, carapace shape, etc.) identify all the species of a genus (_e.g. Brachypelma_).

What I mean is this: at hobby level, all we can do is trust the dealers to "know" what we have. Do you know someone with a real _Brachypelma vagans_? We just memorize the scientific names, and then apply them to "similar" animals (for visual comparison); that's no science. That is, in my opinion, the reason that make this a hobby.

The "average hobbyst" could learn to identify different taxonomic groups (so, not being lazy), but I just don't think that will happen. All we usually do is the simple action of: memorize-visually compare-say the name.

The use of available binomina of course has some advantages, but it is not a guarantee of knowledge.


----------



## esotericman (Apr 21, 2011)

Dave,

I stand corrected, and I was implying only tarantulas, which has a similar number of species as the NA birds.  

As for the binomial nomenclature system, even if it is removed, it will never fade away as the original publications are going to have those labels, as will all the vouchers.  The idea of understaffed museums relabeling millions of samples only over some opinions is unlikely, no matter how many opinions are given.  I have read some of the supporting literature for the end of the binomial system, and I am unconvinced, not out of some sort of need to hold on the the "old way", but just out of the work it would create and all of it, unfundable.  If a building needs to be repainted to protect it, I understand, but to repaint it just to make the color more popular, no.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 21, 2011)

esotericman said:


> As for the binomial nomenclature system, even if it is removed, it will never fade away as the original publications are going to have those labels, as will all the vouchers.  The idea of understaffed museums relabeling millions of samples only over some opinions is unlikely, no matter how many opinions are given.  I have read some of the supporting literature for the end of the binomial system, and I am unconvinced, not out of some sort of need to hold on the the "old way", but just out of the work it would create and all of it, unfundable.  If a building needs to be repainted to protect it, I understand, but to repaint it just to make the color more popular, no.


There are differences between wholesale replacement or revision of a nomenclatural system or the implementation of dual systems. I advocate neither the first nor the third. The fact of the matter is that a formal nomenclatural system is a handmaiden to science, not an edifice that stands separate to it. The ICZN, as a vehicle for conveying taxa-as-hypotheses, is severely out of date with systematics practice. To equate the revision of a nomenclatural system to a new coat of paint is to misrepresent the science that forms the basis for formal names. Moving our nomenclatural system into the present will have to happen sooner or later, regardless of the amount of work required. And, with regard to a binomial system, this will have to acknowledge that monotypic genera/taxa are empirically vacuous constructs.


----------



## gromgrom (Apr 21, 2011)

Fran said:


> Dave;
> I think, and please correct me if Im wrong, since I have no experience with scorpions, that common names _might _ work better with them, since seems like a lot of them are area related names, more than individual characteristics. For example, as you said, "Asian Forest etc".
> 
> With tarantulas...I just dont see any good thing coming from common names.
> ...


Most scorps have decent common names, usually the more common ones. Problem with AFS is that it covers all of the Heterometrus genus, which are virtually almost indistinguishable to a point, depending on which you have. I cant speak too much for AFS, as Ive never kept or really done much reading on them.

but yes, Arizona Bark Scorpion is always C. sculpt for short. However, Flordia Bark is interchanged with C. gracilis and C. vittatius, and Cuban Bark is interchanged with C. guanesis and C. gracilis. 

If they came up with a good common name system for scorpions, it could work much better than T's, like what was mentioned with birds. I might even adopt it for telling my friends, as they ask what its "englsh" name is. "oh thats the deathstalker, the fattail, the orange one"  I only use common names around them.

Common names are useful for probably that, but my roommates arent that bright in science. When I meet people who are smart, I use scientific names.


----------



## Formerphobe (Apr 21, 2011)

Interesting article:

http://exoticfauna.com/arachnoculture/3/AC-i3a8-p1.html


----------



## Falk (Apr 22, 2011)

Formerphobe said:


> Interesting article:
> 
> http://exoticfauna.com/arachnoculture/3/AC-i3a8-p1.html


Good article, but it should mention that saying tarantula is not really correct either, birdspider would be a correct word for a theraphosid


----------



## DamoK21 (Apr 22, 2011)

I for one will only ever use scientific names, and if i *MUST*, i will label with scientific, and common. But never i will use the common name by its self.

reason beings is this

My starburst baboon is ..... what should i do

My bird eater has just ...... help please

My earth tiger is doing ...... is it normal

My white stripe bird eater just escaped.


For those who belive that common names are important, knock you selfs out here, see how many you can correctly ID. 

If at a push and this hobby, as formentioned must use common names, then i plea that if it is a must, we should also use common names along side the scientific names. Other wise, scientific names it should stay.

As for the world who DONT understand the science of these animals, or there names, we can simply say, abdomen = gut, Pterinochilus chordata = killmanjaro baboon.Correct me if im wrong but when i last checked, we as humans have the abillity to talk, and ask.

In my experience, using scientific names does NOT make others turn a blind eye, but actually gets them asking MORE questions about the spider, giving you more of a chance to explain this great hobby. You turn round and say "Mexican red knee", oh iv seen them in zoo's. End of confo


----------



## killy (Apr 22, 2011)

DamoK21 said:


> I for one will only ever use scientific names, and if i *MUST*, i will label with scientific, and common. But never i will use the common name by its self ...
> 
> ... we as humans have the abillity to talk, and ask.


Dontcha mean "we as _homo sapiens_" ?


----------



## lightning123 (Apr 22, 2011)

RyTheTGuy said:


> I've seen tons of member comments telling people if they want to contribute to the hobby then use the scientific name, instead of the common name......but if everyone uses the scientific names wouldn't that also make it the more commonly used name, right?....it seems like people frown upon it when someone says Mexican Red Knee,Trinidad Chevron, Gooty Sapphire, Brazilian Red and White ect. Why? Not everyone want to say the scientific name, some are long and ridiculous. I use them most of the time but i also like use the common names.


i don't make a habit out of learning the scientific names for one simple reason....its just much easier to say the common names. the common names are all made up of words from the english language, which is the language i speak, so its much easier for me to say them. i think the scientific names are not only harder to remember, but some of them are tongue twisters and i may wrongly pronounce them. but if someone asks me, what the true name of my T is and i know....i will gladly tell them.


----------



## paassatt (Apr 22, 2011)

lightning123 said:


> i don't make a habit out of learning the scientific names for one simple reason....its just much easier to say the common names. the common names are all made up of words from the english language, which is the language i speak, so its much easier for me to say them. i think the scientific names are not only harder to remember, but some of them are tongue twisters and i may wrongly pronounce them. but if someone asks me, what the true name of my T is and i know....i will gladly tell them.


Yeah, learning stuff is hard...why exercise your brain when you can keep it in lazy mode? Makes perfect sense

:?


----------



## lightning123 (Apr 22, 2011)

paassatt said:


> Yeah, learning stuff is hard...why exercise your brain when you can keep it in lazy mode? Makes perfect sense
> 
> :?


yeah because learning words from a forgotten language is really gonna help me through life, oh, your such an inspiration:wall:


----------



## paassatt (Apr 22, 2011)

lightning123 said:


> yeah because learning words from a forgotten language is really gonna help me through life, oh, your such an inspiration:wall:


Latin may be a "forgotten" language, but Greek certainly isn't. Oh, did you think that scientific names were all derived from Latin? I guess doing a bit of research on that was too hard as well, yeah?


----------



## lightning123 (Apr 22, 2011)

paassatt said:


> Latin may be a "forgotten" language, but Greek certainly isn't. Oh, did you think that scientific names were all derived from Latin? I guess doing a bit of research on that was too hard as well, yeah?


yep, way too much work for something not needed....when they ban use of the english language, maybe i'll decide to use scientific names...but right now....im proud to speak the langauge ive spoke all my life.
do you think it makes you smarter than me because you have the useless talent of knowing latin and greek words....i will never go to greece & the latin language is dead and gone as far as im concerned. not only that but english is the most commonly used language, hence why we call them the common names...which hints towards the average of people use ''the common names''.
do not think you are above me because you know more about arachnids in general than i do, im still a beginner in the hobby. im sure there are lots of things i could educate you on in different subjects so dont take me for a fool.


----------



## esotericman (Apr 22, 2011)

The pronunciation guides are in "English", you'll be OK giving them a go.  Furthermore, they're not "Greek" and "Latin" they're parts or derived from those languages and others.  A fun site, which gives an overview of the rules of nomenclature and some interesting names as well is here:

http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/word/alpha.html


_Ba humbugi _ is a snail
_Gressittia titsadaysi_ is a horse fly

And _Gekko_ is named after the sound they make...

Sure it's "geeky" but I can say _Parastratiosphecomyia stratiosphecomyioides_ anywhere in the world, in any country, and those who know flies will understand.


----------



## lightning123 (Apr 22, 2011)

esotericman said:


> The pronunciation guides are in "English", you'll be OK giving them a go.  Furthermore, they're not "Greek" and "Latin" they're parts or derived from those languages and others.  A fun site, which gives an overview of the rules of nomenclature and some interesting names as well is here:
> 
> http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/word/alpha.html
> 
> ...


maybe ill give it a go then if its fun....i have no problem wih attempting to learn, but the guy who posted above you thought he would join the topic and say something useless, guess he has nothing better to do that argue with people....hmmm gonna try that website now thanks for the link.

edit lol: i meant the guy who posted above me....XD


----------



## DamoK21 (Apr 22, 2011)

killy said:


> Dontcha mean "we as _homo sapiens_" ?



what ever floats ya boat :}


----------



## paassatt (Apr 22, 2011)

lightning123 said:


> maybe ill give it a go then if its fun....i have no problem wih attempting to learn, but the guy who posted above you thought he would join the topic and say something useless, guess he has nothing better to do that argue with people....hmmm gonna try that website now thanks for the link.
> 
> edit lol: i meant the guy who posted above me....XD


I may like to argue, but at least I'm not arrogant enough to think that if something doesn't revolve around the English language, it isn't of any importance. Especially when in a hobby that encompasses so many different people around the world who don't all speak the same language. Taxonomy is like music- it transcends language barriers.


----------



## DamoK21 (Apr 22, 2011)

ok girls and boys, there really is no need to go on with the "argueing", its getting abit petty now.

Yes we all speak english, ok english can be argued out here, as the brits and US *DO* spell diffrently, so to argue out the english language, is petty.

Everyone here is still learning, no matter how experienced you are, we are all still learning, some will revise it, others will take the easy route, and come here to ask about it. The facts are, we are all simply the same, some are more educated on some subjects, compared to others. Really this argueing, with smart remarks about how to right it, about the english language, latin and greek, how to spell is pointless.

Were all here in this hobby because we love it, and were all learning somthing new everyday. Were not here to be tested on science, english, latin, or greek (this includes spelling). were here because we all simply have 1 thing in common, inverts !! 

so smile people, chillax (relax) and lets all kiss make up :}, and play nice.


----------



## lightning123 (Apr 22, 2011)

DamoK21 said:


> ok girls and boys, there really is no need to go on with the "argueing", its getting abit petty now.
> 
> Yes we all speak english, ok english can be argued out here, as the brits and US *DO* spell diffrently, so to argue out the english language, is petty.
> 
> ...


totally agree, im a lover not a fighter....but over-confidence and cockiness tests my patience....other wise, i get along with anyone else who is willing....after all, were all here for probably the same reason....whether its for info on a certain species or something else along those lines....in the end, its the love of arachnids, the fascination of them which intrigues us to read and learn about them and how to keep them which brought us here.


----------



## JamieC (Apr 22, 2011)

Using scientific names is an absolute *must* in this hobby. I understand that they are complicated, difficult to spell and pronounce, but you'll soon realise we would be lost without them.

I'll occasionally use common names when I'm talking to friends who know nothing about T's to avoid confusing them, but they are not really of any use otherwise. They can be very misleading.

Jamie


----------



## Anastasia (Apr 24, 2011)

After reading first 10 posts I stopped, I wont waste 3hr of my life read whole thread, my head spins, why such negative outlook on whole topic?
Common names are very beneficial if used with Scientific names
why draw a line??
Everyone in this hobby started some where Am sure All of you scientific name proper folks didn't know them All at ones.
So here is my point of view on this matter, 
Using Common name with Scientific name its like putting face to the name
Common names tell you (in many cases to new people to this hobby) where tarantula come from and possibly what it looks like. 
Example: Brazilian Black(Grammostola pulchra) its a black tarantula from Brazil.
So in my opinion Common names are beneficial if used with Scientific names also will help new folks to learn more about tarantula all Scientific names will come along with time and practice is well.

Anastasia


----------



## paassatt (Apr 25, 2011)

Anastasia said:


> Common names are very beneficial if used with Scientific names
> why draw a line??
> 
> Anastasia


I agree, so long as the scientific names are used in conjunction with the common names. The common names really aren't so evil, it just gets my goat when people outright refuse to learn or use them, because common names are "in english", or "easier" or any of the other excuses.


----------



## DamoK21 (Apr 25, 2011)

paassatt said:


> I agree, so long as the scientific names are used in conjunction with the common names. The common names really aren't so evil, it just gets my goat when people outright refuse to learn or use them, because common names are "in english", or "easier" or any of the other excuses.


I also agree, as said if i have to (which is 9 times out of 10) i will put "scientific name (common name)", in that format.

As "passsssaaaaaaattttt" ;P said, it really does get right on my nerve's if one is to lazy to learn, if they cant learn what Sp they have, why would i belive they have researched the care for there animal.

IMO, to use just common names can become fatal to many animals in the hobby, and from there point of view, YOU will be the one responsible, and they will go you NO end of trouble, this is NOT the only reason as to why scientific names are more important. Yes there are some (close to none) common names that cannot be mistaken, such as "GBB", But, when one sais a baboon spider or tiger, you dont have a clue were to start, baboon spider, is it aboreal (H.maculata), or is it terrestrial (P.lurgardi maybe), or does the spider burrow (H.gigas). Were would you point at, the more common/popular baboon kept (P.murinus), a burrowing H.gigas, or a tree dweller H.mac....

We all have seen this happen, i have a black tiger, i have a baboon spider, yeshhh and what is the scientific name, "i dont no".. Got a photo.... "No"...

end of help, they get mad because were supposed to be a bunch of mind readers. 

But then common names do have there up sides also, ok not as important, but they do, such as telling somone about your mexican redknee, or doing talks at schools and so on. But really when it comes to the crunch, getting help for an earth tiger, is ahell of alot harder than getting help for you Haplopelma longipes


----------



## jbm150 (Apr 25, 2011)

Anastasia said:


> Using Common name with Scientific name its like putting face to the name


I like that, thats an interesting way of putting it


----------



## Bumblingbear (May 8, 2011)

I really don't understand why every hobby needs to have such a large dose of elitism.

Can't we all get along?

I'm learning the scientific names to everything, but I will admit it is embarrassing sometimes talking to someone in person and mispronouncing the scientific names.


----------



## groovyspider (May 8, 2011)

NikiP said:


> Your arguement is invalid.
> 
> 
> I'd love to own a grizzled marble half moon doubletail. Do you know what that is? Doubt it.
> .


i just started reading this post and just got to thi part if it was answered sorry but isnt that a type of betta?


----------



## NikiP (May 8, 2011)

groovyspider said:


> i just started reading this post and just got to thi part if it was answered sorry but isnt that a type of betta?


You got it


----------



## baboonfan (May 8, 2011)

Anastasia said:


> After reading first 10 posts I stopped, I wont waste 3hr of my life read whole thread, my head spins, why such negative outlook on whole topic?
> Common names are very beneficial if used with Scientific names
> why draw a line??
> Everyone in this hobby started some where Am sure All of you scientific name proper folks didn't know them All at ones.
> ...


Well put! I am guessing you have been around in the hobby for a while. If you are the same person I am thinking of you have a very good reputation as a hobbyist. 

The common names used do put a face on a T, especially for a beginner. We need as many interested people in this hobby as possible given the fact that too many people assume that large spider = deadly poisonous. Ignorance can only be defeated by interest and alot of people arent interested in angry nerds with low self esteems or keyboard commandos engaging in petty arguments.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------




Bumblingbear said:


> I really don't understand why every hobby needs to have such a large dose of elitism.
> 
> Can't we all get along?
> 
> I'm learning the scientific names to everything, but I will admit it is embarrassing sometimes talking to someone in person and mispronouncing the scientific names.


Dont worry, the nerds often fail to pronounce them properly too. No hobby needs elitism, this hobby needs it the least. There are people in society who put deadly labels on whatever they assume looks scary. Such people let their fear run away with them and inspire retarded laws that strip us all of our hobby.


----------



## seany217 (May 8, 2011)

I'm rather new to tarantula keeping, and in general names of tarantulas, however, I do feel it's important to know both the common name and the latin especially if purchasing a T.  I relate it more to food, of course I would never eat a tarantula, but being a chef I apply most things in ways I can understand.  
A Cobalt Blue tarantula is likely to sell more to an unsuspecting and unknowing person that a Haplopelma lividum is gonna.  Like a Creme' Brulee is gonna sell more that a carmalized sugar covered custard.  
With that being said there are those who nit pick over minor details such as capitalization that make even wanting to post replies and selling arrangements an ordeal in and of itself.  
Education is important, but let's not forget why we're all in this hobby, it's because we enjoy looking, studying, and yes even loving these wonderful animals, the likes of which I was afraid to even be around 8 months ago.  

Best Wishes, 

Sean


----------



## Mojo Jojo (May 8, 2011)

You are a chef and wouldn't _ever_ try a tarantula, even if it wasn't someone's pet?


----------



## seany217 (May 8, 2011)

No I wouldn't, now if it were a survival necessity yes...but honestly I couldn't do it.  I have tried many things, things like other bugs, duck tongue, etc. but there are limits to what I would eat.


----------



## Bigboy (May 9, 2011)

Everyone starts with common names, people that are dedicated and want to go further finish with scientific names.  Common names are easy for people not used to scientific names.  Scientific names provide a host of information in two words to people that understand them.

Stop squabbling, keep learning, keep enjoying the hobby.


----------



## Bill S (May 10, 2011)

Bumblingbear said:


> I'm learning the scientific names to everything, but I will admit it is embarrassing sometimes talking to someone in person and mispronouncing the scientific names.


Don't worry about it.  Some of the people who insist on using their pronunciation aren't pronouncing it correctly according to Latin rules.  I remember talking with a well known dealer about a particular species of tarantula I was interested in.  I've got enough of a background in languages to know how that genus should be pronounced, but the dealer used a very different pronunciation.  We were both stubborn and kept using our own choice of pronunciations, and I think someone watching from the side would have laughed at the "battle of wills".  

Use your best guess, do a little research, be ready to adapt and to accept that there will be contrary opinions.  (I have a friend from another country who doesn't speak English.  When he hears Americans pronouncing scientific names he mutters about them not realizing that Latin is its own language with its own rules.  Many Americans try to "Americanize" the Latin to fit their own comfort zones.)


----------



## Anastasia (May 10, 2011)

Bumblingbear said:


> I'm learning the scientific names to everything, but I will admit it is embarrassing sometimes talking to someone in person and mispronouncing the scientific names.


like Bill said I wouldn't worry about ( I mispronounce English all the time )
unless you on Youtube claims to know it ALL and then stick a foot in the mouth, haha, I seriously wouldnt worry and just back you self up with a comon name, just so much easy to say GBB then Chromatopelma  or Blue fang instead of Ephebopus cyanognathus, took me awhile know spellings with out copy them, some of them words to say is a tongue twisters


----------



## Kirk (May 10, 2011)

Anastasia said:


> like Bill said I wouldn't worry about ( I mispronounce English all the time )
> unless you on Youtube claims to know it ALL and then stick a foot in the mouth, haha, I seriously wouldnt worry and just back you self up with a comon name, just so much easy to say GBB then Chromatopelma  or Blue fang instead of Ephebopus cyanognathus, took me awhile know spellings with out copy them, some of them words to say is a tongue twisters


When I started my ph.d. at the Smithsonian, I pronounced the name of a German polychaete systematist (Augener) as though it was French. My advisor, who is Norwegian, graciously chastised me. That put the fear of god in me to always be careful with pronunciation of personal as well as scientific names.


----------



## Anastasia (May 10, 2011)

Kirk said:


> When I started my ph.d. at the Smithsonian, I pronounced the name of a German polychaete systematist (Augener) as though it was French. My advisor, who is Norwegian, graciously chastised me. That put the fear of god in me to always be careful with pronunciation of personal as well as scientific names.


in this case, I will cut my tongue off or wont speak again, hahah
Am absolutely horrible with pronunciations wore they scientific names or people names
Good think I dont get out much
Welcome back Dr. Kirk


----------



## Lopez (May 10, 2011)

If you want to hear brilliant pronunciation of scientific names, speak to Volker von Wirth. 

"Coremiocnemis" never sounded so right


----------



## Rowdy Hotel (May 23, 2011)

Not to go off on a tangent or bump an old thread, but one of my pet peeves when it comes to selling T's is when a dealer or website has a long list of T's for sale and lists them with their common names first! Sometimes I will just skip the ad entirely. It's such a pain to scroll through a list of common names in search of some T's you're interested in even if the common names are listed alphabetically. I suggest we all list them alphabetically by scientific name, with a common name after if desired.

---------- Post added at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ----------

And what's all this talk about pronunciation? Several times I've been to shows in search of T's knowing the scientific name of the spider I'm looking for, but having never heard anyone pronounce it I just pronounced them as I saw fit. The dealer would then say it differently but we know what spider we're each talking about so who cares... really?

The only way I would deem correct would be to pronounce them in Latin, the language they are written in. Seeing how few people know Latin, that's probably not going to happen. Most of the time I hear scientific names they're pronounced in English so you have Latin words pronounced in English and this leads to some being difficult to pronounce.


----------



## Falk (May 23, 2011)

jbm150 said:


> I like that, thats an interesting way of putting it


Not really true,  Pink zebra pink zebra beauty for an example doesnt say anything about the specie and the spiders doesnt even look like a zebra. Same with Honduras Curly hair, does not only live in Honduras.
Many of those common names gives should be changed as they give a false face to the birdspider. Besides from that, saying taranula is not really correct either birdspider is the correct common name for a theraphosid.


----------



## Anastasia (May 23, 2011)

Falk said:


> Not really true,  Pink zebra pink zebra beauty for an example doesnt say anything about the specie and the spiders doesnt even look like a zebra. Same with Honduras Curly hair, does not only live in Honduras.
> Many of those common names gives should be changed as they give a false face to the birdspider. Besides from that, saying taranula is not really correct either birdspider is the correct common name for a theraphosid.


well, lets take your example Eupalaestrus campestratus do have stripes on the legs (knees), anything with striping could be a zebra-ish, also could be stripeknee is well (as Eupalaestrus campestratus found Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, common name could be Pink(from pinkish setae) stripeknee) but this tarantula is so known As PZB so most folks know what they are.
And yes some common names aren't great and could of been better at descriptions
but lets agree Curly hair is quite curly and usually called just 'Curly hair'   

now, why birdspider?


----------



## Falk (May 23, 2011)

Anastasia said:


> well, lets take your example Eupalaestrus campestratus do have stripes on the legs (knees), anything with striping could be a zebra-ish, also could be stripeknee is well (as Eupalaestrus campestratus found Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, common name could be Pink(from pinkish setae) stripeknee) but this tarantula is so known As PZB so most folks know what they are.
> And yes some common names aren't great and could of been better at descriptions
> but lets agree Curly hair is quite curly and usually called just 'Curly hair'
> 
> now, why birdspider?


Im not good with explanations but i will give it a try. Tarantula comes from the _Lycosa tarantula_ and by misstake some started to call theraphosids for tarantulas as they thought it was the same type of spider. The first common name given to _Theraphosidae_ was birdspider and that is also what the taxonoms use.


----------



## Quazgar (May 23, 2011)

I will give my opinion as a newbie to the hobby.  I think that common names would be great *IF* they were standardized.  Unfortunately a lot of common names are just made up by people selling tarantulas as a way of trying to create a flashy label to attract customers.  I try to learn all of the scientific names so that if someone does use some new made up name I might still know what it is.  The (admittedly few) common names that are somewhat standardized I don't think there's any problem using.  I'd even bet that many of those who are most adamantly arguing that common names should never be used has referred to an OBT or GBB.  

On the other hand, in my short time here already I have seen *many* threads about "I was sold this spider as species x but I don't think it is.  What is it?"  These are often sold using the scientific names incorrectly.  

The other problem is there are so many species that are so similar that correct identification takes such subtle distinction that mistaking the ID (whether common or scientific) is very common.


----------



## Bill S (May 23, 2011)

Rowdy Hotel said:


> The only way I would deem correct would be to pronounce them in Latin, the language they are written in. Seeing how few people know Latin, that's probably not going to happen. Most of the time I hear scientific names they're pronounced in English so you have Latin words pronounced in English and this leads to some being difficult to pronounce.


The original intent for using Latin was to have a standard that people from all countries and all languages could use as common ground.  The scientific name today serves that purpose, but as you mention, English speakers (Americans perhaps more than others) seem to forget that Latin is its own language and assume that the scientific names should be pronounced as though they were strange English names.  I don't think this is as bad in other languages/countries, but I'm sure it happens to some extent.  (My friends in other countries complain that Americans don't recognize Latin as a language.)


----------



## gromgrom (May 23, 2011)

i think the only three common names i use are OBT, GBB, and Blue Fang, just because.


----------



## Rowdy Hotel (May 23, 2011)

I'll never call them bird spiders seeing how tarantulas don't really eat birds. They will, no doubt, should one fall into their lap, but they don't actively seek them. Then again, what someone wants to call mygalomorphs doesn't really matter to me, it's the common names that can be applied to more than one species or the made up ones that bother people. I'm not even sure why people even feel obligated to immediately create a common name for a spider that doesn't have one because it's new to the hobby or what not. Probaby just to make some more sales to those new people who don't know/care for scientific names.


----------



## ArachnoYak (May 23, 2011)

We must all keep in mind that binomial nomenclature isn't just limited to the world of arachnids.  It would be in the best interest of anyone wanting to know more about the natural world to familiarize themselves with scientific names.  Plants, animals, fungi, etc. every species has one specific name recognized worldwide.


----------



## Anastasia (May 23, 2011)

Falk said:


> Im not good with explanations but i will give it a try. Tarantula comes from the _Lycosa tarantula_ and by misstake some started to call theraphosids for tarantulas as they thought it was the same type of spider. The first common name given to _Theraphosidae_ was birdspider and that is also what the taxonoms use.


so is the baboon spiders (just because they are African species)
I really doubt name birdspider more valid /or proper then Tarantula ah, at least not in the hobby level


----------



## Bill S (May 23, 2011)

Rowdy Hotel said:


> I'll never call them bird spiders seeing how tarantulas don't really eat birds.


If you are going on strike against common names that contain false information, you've got quite a road ahead of you.  Roadrunners do not run along roads, black bears are not always black, bald eagles are not really bald, Gray wolves are not always gray, tarantula hawks are not hawks, gold fish are not gold, etc., etc.  Might as well just shrug and accept it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zoltan (May 24, 2011)

Good examples there Bill, there's an organism, _Polingenia longicauda_, its common name in Hungarian is "Tiszaflower" (Tisza being a river), and it's not a plant but an insect.

Theraphosidae have been observed eating birds in the wild on more than one occasion. I have a few literary references saved somewhere on this computer. While I'm not sure what the first "common" name given to theraphosids was, I know what was the first binomial name given to a theraphosid: _Aranea avicularia_, and according to Thorell: "deriv: _avicularius_ (bird-keeper), in the signification adopted, bird-catcher". If you don't like the name birdeater/birdspider, know you are using it whenever you say/write _Avicularia_. Birdspider(/bird eating spider) is a traditional name for theraphosids. However, contrary to what Falk stated, I've seen taxonomists use birdspider as well as tarantula, not to mention baboon spider, in peer-reviewed articles.


----------



## Rowdy Hotel (May 25, 2011)

Zoltan said:


> Good examples there Bill, there's an organism, _Polingenia longicauda_, its common name in Hungarian is "Tiszaflower" (Tisza being a river), and it's not a plant but an insect.
> 
> Theraphosidae have been observed eating birds in the wild on more than one occasion. I have a few literary references saved somewhere on this computer. While I'm not sure what the first "common" name given to theraphosids was, I know what was the first binomial name given to a theraphosid: _Aranea avicularia_, and according to Thorell: "deriv: _avicularius_ (bird-keeper), in the signification adopted, bird-catcher". If you don't like the name birdeater/birdspider, know you are using it whenever you say/write _Avicularia_. Birdspider(/bird eating spider) is a traditional name for theraphosids. However, contrary to what Falk stated, I've seen taxonomists use birdspider as well as tarantula, not to mention baboon spider, in peer-review articles.


I have no qualms whatsoever with avicularia meaning bird spider seeing how it is a scientific name and not a common name. If someone called tarantulas frog spiders because they've been observed eating frogs I wouldn't use that common name but if it was worked into a scientific name I would be all for it and advocate its use. I'm sure there are lots of scientific names out there which are based on common names not aptly applied to their species. Again, what's matters most is what people call individual species, not so much what people want to call mygalomorphs in general.


----------



## Jared781 (Mar 3, 2012)

Why are Scientific names always changing if they're that important?


----------



## jayefbe (Mar 3, 2012)

Jared781 said:


> Why are Scientific names always changing if they're that important?


The answer to this must be in this thread or elsewhere. Somehow, I think you're more interested in starting an argument than actually learning the answer. 

Scientific names change to when new species are described, when it's discovered that newly described species were actually already described previously (the first name take precedence), when a species was originally called something incorrectly (which isn't the name changing, it's correcting an incorrect taxonomic identification) or because a more accurate relationship has been determined and a species is moved to a new genus.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jared781 (Mar 4, 2012)

jayefbe said:


> The answer to this must be in this thread or elsewhere. Somehow, I think you're more interested in starting an argument than actually learning the answer.
> 
> Scientific names change to when new species are described, when it's discovered that newly described species were actually already described previously (the first name take precedence), when a species was originally called something incorrectly (which isn't the name changing, it's correcting an incorrect taxonomic identification) or because a more accurate relationship has been determined and a species is moved to a new genus.


actually no.. *again im quite curious!!!*....

_NOTICE:_ how i ressurrected an old thread instead of started a new one?? YET i still get the same replys! funny how that is huh??


----------



## MrDeranged (Mar 4, 2012)

Jared781 said:


> actually no.. *again im quite curious!!!*....
> 
> _NOTICE:_ how i ressurrected an old thread instead of started a new one?? YET i still get the same replys! funny how that is huh??


You mean a reply that answers your question?    Jayefbe gave you some very good reasons why scientific names change.



jayefbe said:


> Scientific names change to when new species are described, when it's discovered that newly described species were actually already described previously (the first name take precedence), when a species was originally called something incorrectly (which isn't the name changing, it's correcting an incorrect taxonomic identification) or because a more accurate relationship has been determined and a species is moved to a new genus.


If that is too long for you, then I give you the TLDR version:

*Scientific names change to keep up with science.*

Enjoy
MrD

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tarac (Mar 6, 2012)

MrDeranged said:


> You mean a reply that answers your question?    Jayefbe gave you some very good reasons why scientific names change.


I think it's the part where it opens with a snarky remark about disinterest in learning that bothered him, not the explanation.  And before I get one in return, I am aware of the background story... I'm just saying, he got the answer to the question prefaced by an attack so it's not surprising there is some defensiveness in response.

Latin names also get changed when old names are deemed "illegal" according to the rules of binomial nomenclature for a particular field.  They aren't all the same though- zoology, for example, can have names which are redundant- Bison bison, Naga naga, etc.  In botany, this is an illegal combination.  Sometimes it is found that an older name takes precedence but changing it to that epithet would violate the laws governing name assignments so it has to be adjusted accordingly, usually by using a new name altogether.  

Seems silly at a glance, but this is very important.  The laws ensure that using a scientific name, even one that has been changed, you can still know exactly what organism it is you are talking about.  Google "butterfly bush" and see how many different *families* of plant show up, let alone species.  By using Senna bicapsularis or Buddleia davidii instead of "butterfly bush" there is no question which you are talking about.  If you use an older, invalid name you will still be able to track the name change and find out what it is now synonymous with.  

Names are changing a lot these days because our molecular techniques, which are fairly new in the scheme of things and have exponentially improved in a very short time, are being put to use.  Suddenly a whole lot more information is available beyond morphology (which can be very deceptive) so the nomenclature has to be adjusted accordingly.

A perfect example is the Southern Pocket Gopher, or the Sandy Mounder, or the "Sallymander"- see how that gets distorted because it passes from one southern-drawling lay person to the next?  Suddenly you find yourself in rural Florida wondering why this guy is telling you about all the destructive salamanders on his property when he lives in pine sand hills without a drop of water anywhere.  There is no such thing as a "correct" common name, they are what they are and are therefor often inherently misleading and ambiguous.

Stick with latin, you can't go wrong.  Just have to keep so you don't scolded for using Citharischius crawshayi.


----------



## paassatt (Mar 6, 2012)

It isn't really correct to call them "latin names" because the names are derived from other languages too, like Greek, among others. Just wanted to point that out.


----------



## Kris M (Mar 6, 2012)

I really despise having to decipher information from bulloop:.

As a newcomer to this hobby all this thread did was make me realize how many idiots are out there.

For the people who provided legitimate information, thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tarac (Mar 7, 2012)

paassatt said:


> It isn't really correct to call them "latin names" because the names are derived from other languages too, like Greek, among others. Just wanted to point that out.


Yes it is- "Latin names" is the "common name" for binomial nomenclature, used even by scientists in casual settings.  This is a random internet forum that anyone can join right?

Look right here, Purdue calls them "Latin" binomials:

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/courses/HORT217/Nomenclature/description.htm

The act of generating these names was described as "Latinizing" regardless of the origin of the roots.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RyTheTGuy (Mar 7, 2012)

jayefbe said:


> The answer to this must be in this thread or elsewhere. Somehow, I think you're more interested in starting an argument than actually learning the answer.


Lol, actually that's have the reason I started this thread "last year" ^.^ It is good to see this thread still starting arguments. lol jk.


----------



## Bill S (Mar 7, 2012)

Tarac said:


> Yes it is- "Latin names" is the "common name" for binomial nomenclature, .....
> The act of generating these names was described as "Latinizing" regardless of the origin of the roots.


Absolutely correct.  Words and names from a wide range of backgrounds and languages have found their way into the binomial process, but they are Latinized and adhere to Latin grammatical rules.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## paassatt (Mar 7, 2012)

Tarac said:


> Yes it is- "Latin names" is the "common name" for binomial nomenclature, used even by scientists in casual settings.  This is a random internet forum that anyone can join right?
> 
> Look right here, Purdue calls them "Latin" binomials:
> 
> ...





Bill S said:


> Absolutely correct.  Words and names from a wide range of backgrounds and languages have found their way into the binomial process, but they are Latinized and adhere to Latin grammatical rules.


I see that I stand corrected. Duly noted.


----------



## sjl197 (Mar 7, 2012)

I suggest see this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature

under the heading 'Derivation of binomial names'.

as we all know wiki is not the fountain of all knowledge, but i think this bit useful to understand 'latinized'


----------

