# Different Genus but same species?



## loverVSliar (Dec 22, 2008)

I've noticed that some types of spiders are the same species, yet they have a different genus, are they at all related? Or does it have no real signifigance?
e.g A.metallica and P.Metallica.


----------



## CellebrO (Dec 22, 2008)

These are entirely different species. Im not sure why the last name is the same - may be because of the color or smtn...


----------



## Bill S (Dec 22, 2008)

Sometimes it's just the coincidental use of the same species name for members of a different genus.  Might be two different animals named after the same person, or maybe they have a particular feature that they are named after.  (Sometimes the difference is much wider than two different genera - for example the American lion of the Pleistoscene and the western diamondback rattlesnake both share the species name "atrox", as I believe at least one tarantula does.)

But.... sometimes when you see two different genera using the same species name, it might be that one reference is outdated and is using a genus name that is no longer correct.  In such a case, both names may very well refer to the same animal.


----------



## radicaldementia (Dec 22, 2008)

The species name is usually descriptive of the species and is derived from some latin word.  However, the full species name of an organism is it's genus and species name.  There are many species with the same species name, but you always refer to a species using both names.  As far as I'm aware, genus names are always unique.

_Cyriocosmus elegans_ is a tarantula

_Centruroides elegans_ is a scorpion

_Caenorhabditis elegans_ is a small (1mm) nematode worm


----------



## Moltar (Dec 22, 2008)

The species name is usually one of 3 things: A latin word describing some physical attribute, A latin word describing a locality (north, south, mountains, etc) or some variation of a person's name; usually the scientist who described or discovered it. Sometimes though it's something off the wall. I'm not sure if the honors go to the person who discovered the species or the one who describes it, but they get to name it. For example, there's a mygalomorph out there with the name "stevencolberti" as in Steven Colbert from Comedy Central. Apparently he has several species and an airplane named after him.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 22, 2008)

In zoology, naming is controlled by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Similar codes are written for bacteria and plants. When one speaks of a species, formal reference is binomial, i.e. the genus and specific epithet (what is incorrectly referred to as the 'species') must be used together. A particular generic name must be unique, whereas specific epithets don't if used in different genera. As a consequence, you'll find a lot of different animals to which the same specific epithet is applied. The rules for naming don't require that one present a formal name that refers to some attribute of specimens, where they come from, etc. For instance, there's a genus of sea worm named after me, Kirkia. I've described several new genera for which I used anagrams of the genus Fabricia. For specific epithets, I've come up with all sorts of reasons for names. One thing the ICZN will not allow is for one to apply a formal name derived from their own name. Probably a good idea, considering the egos of some scientists.


----------



## Drachenjager (Dec 22, 2008)

chone1 said:


> . One thing the ICZN will not allow is for one to apply a formal name derived from their own name. Probably a good idea, considering the egos of some scientists.


amen to that lol


----------



## Bill S (Dec 23, 2008)

chone1 said:


> One thing the ICZN will not allow is for one to apply a formal name derived from their own name. Probably a good idea, considering the egos of some scientists.


I did hear a story about someone naming a new species of tick after his ex-wife.  Something about "blood sucking parasite" matched the name and the namesake.


----------



## David Burns (Dec 23, 2008)

How about http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2...california_spider_named_for_stephen_colb.html

And what/who was H.vonwirthi named after?


----------



## kbekker (Dec 23, 2008)

"A particular generic name must be unique," 

There are actually weird occasions when even the Generic name is not unique.
_Abronia sp_. = Lizard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abronia_(animal)
_Abronia sp_. = Plant http://www.austinsage.com/gallery/abronia/abroni.htm

However I don't think there are two _Abronia_ with the same specific name.

There are other examples to, I just can't think of them right now.


----------



## Zoltan (Dec 23, 2008)

kbekker said:


> "A particular generic name must be unique,"
> 
> There are actually weird occasions when even the Generic name is not unique.
> _Abronia sp_. = Lizard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abronia_(animal)
> _Abronia sp_. = Plant http://www.austinsage.com/gallery/abronia/abroni.htm


Well I don't know about that, but bear in mind that chone1 was quoting the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which applies to animals, not plants. Two different animal genera can't have the same name, because then they wouldn't be different genera. There is a theraphosid example of incorrect naming: the genus _Poecilotheria_ Simon, 1885 was first called _Scurria_ Koch, 1850; later to be discovered that the name _Scurria_ is already taken, and is a mollusk genus, and the generic name was replaced to _Poecilotheria_.

Text from Pocock's 1899 publication: »click«.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 23, 2008)

Eraisuithon said:


> Well I don't know about that, but bear in mind that chone1 was quoting the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which applies to animals, not plants. Two different animal genera can't have the same name, because then they wouldn't be different genera. There is a theraphosid example of incorrect naming: the genus _Poecilotheria_ Simon, 1885 was first called _Scurria_ Koch, 1850; later to be discovered that the name _Scurria_ is already taken, and is a mollusk genus, and the generic name was replaced to _Poecilotheria_.


The nomenclatural codes for plants and animals don't preclude respective uses of the same names for genera. As Eraisuithon noted, the restrictions apply within plants, within animals, within bacteria, etc.

For those who suffer insomnia, or just love reading extremely dry prose, the latest edition of the _International Code of Zoological Nomenclature _is available online: http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp. Happy reading!


----------



## kbekker (Dec 23, 2008)

Eraisuithon said:


> Well I don't know about that, but bear in mind that chone1 was quoting the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which applies to animals, not plants.


True, good call



chone1 said:


> The nomenclatural codes for plants and animals don't preclude respective uses of the same names for genera. As Eraisuithon noted, the restrictions apply within plants, within animals, within bacteria, etc.


 Its just a good thing herpetologist generally don't hang out with botanists, I can only imaging the confusion.


----------



## blazetown (Dec 23, 2008)

In the end basically everything on the planet that is alive is related.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 23, 2008)

blazetown said:


> In the end basically everything on the planet that is alive is related.


Unless one is a creationist.


----------



## bliss (Dec 23, 2008)

chone1 said:


> Unless one is a creationist.


depends on which religion, but this is the wrong forum for that discussion  lol

Erai i agree    etown also has a good answer


----------



## Kirk (Dec 23, 2008)

bliss said:


> depends on which religion, but this is the wrong forum for that discussion


Actually, my quip referred to all irrational reasoning.


----------



## blazetown (Dec 24, 2008)

Lol......:clap:


----------

