Common Names vs Scientific Names

[skinheaddave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

...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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Interesting article:

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

 

[Falk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: