- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Messages
- 887
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.
Common Names vs Scientific Names
- Thread starter RyTheTGuy
- Start date
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,341
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
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
Arachnosquire
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 67
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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,341
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
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
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 298
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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,341
Completely? So you feel there are no problems with how we use scientific names in the hobby?
Cheers,
Dave
Lorum
Arachnosquire
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 111
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.
Thanks for that! I was looking for it.:worship:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2008
- Messages
- 762
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
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 47
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 )
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 )
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,955
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 ----------
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
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,287
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.
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.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 298
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,341
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
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
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,341
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
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
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.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,649
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???)