1. Important Announcement - Upcoming Downtime - Software Upgrade

    Please see here for more details.
Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.

Grammostola aureostriata = G. pulchripes

Discussion in 'Tarantula Chat' started by GoTerps, Apr 3, 2009.

  1. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

  2. sweet thanks for the info.
  3. bamato

    bamato Arachnodemon

    Forgive my ignorance, but does junior synonym mean it's just called pulchripes now?
  4. Look at the title.
  5. Wait, what? How is an Avicularia being reclassified as a Grammastola??

    Oh, and WAR GUIDA, PYN.
  6. bliss

    bliss Arachnoprince Old Timer

    more than likely because it was never an Avicularia to begin with

    maybe a bad description?

    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  7. bamato

    bamato Arachnodemon

    Yeah I noticed that, just the funny jargain threw me off. :?
  8. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

    Hi Bamato,

    Yes, that is correct.
  9. This is a quite standard procedure in systematics. Avicularia borellii was originally described in 1897 as Eurypelma borellii. It's not uncommon that earlier conceptions of taxa have been based on poor definitions that didn't stipulate relevant characters indicating monophyly. Moving species into other genera becomes especially common as researchers are doing revisionary work.
  10. No. The phrase junior synonym indicates that one taxon (species, in this instance) has been given two different names. The younger name is a junior synonym relative to the older name which is the senior synonym. Usually, systematists will use the older name as it has historical precedence, but there are rules that sometimes allow for the continued use of junior synonyms.

    Grammostola aureostriata was described in 2001, whereas G. pulchripes was described in 1891 (I think). If it is shown that G. aureostriata is the same species as G. pulchripes, then the name G. aureostriata takes nomenclatural precedence.
  11. tabor

    tabor Arachnoprince Old Timer

    Everyone should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy) before changing the labels, and also keep in mind it is just one paper. There will undoubtedly be people who disagree with him.

    Here is a good quote from the wiki link:

    "It is possible for a junior synonym to be given precedence over a senior synonym, primarily when the senior name has not been used since it was first described, and the junior name is in common use. The older name becomes a nomen oblitum, and the junior name is declared a nomen protectum. This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name."
  12. The situation is a little more involved. Article 23.9 Reversal of precedence in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) provides the stipulations for maintaining a junior synonym:

    One would have to look at the recent paper for reasons why the synonymy has be effected. If it's the case that Grammostola aureostriata was described in 2001, whereas G. pulchripes was described in 1891, then article 23.9 could not possibly be invoked.
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  13. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer


    This is exactly the case.

    I haven't gotten the paper yet myself, but stayed with Ray for a few days last month and saw why he came to this conclusion.

    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  14. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

    Hi tabor,

    This does not apply here at all. There would be absolutely no reason at all to give precedence to the junior synonym in this case.

  15. Eric,

    Yes, just knowing when each name was published immediately indicates his unquestionable justification. I've sunk a few families, genera, and species in my time, and it's a nice feeling doing the housework, as it makes life easier for everyone.

  16. tabor

    tabor Arachnoprince Old Timer

    I was just going off that one wiki article (a mistake, obviously), and didnt know there were bylaws or whatever. But yeah after reading more into it I do see why the new name would take presidency.

    my main point is this though: do you think dealers will immediately change the name of the name from G. aureostriata to its new name? I don't think so. So while yes, the new name might apply in scientific context, most people in the hobby have known G. auerostriata and what it is for most of the last decade.

    that's why i pointed that quote from the wiki article out, when it says "This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature," i suppose the online hobby and community doesn't count (it makes sense that it wouldn't) :D

    so, here is another question, would it be incorrect in any context to call them G. auerostriata? I mean outside of a scientific journal does it matter?
  17. Rick McJimsey

    Rick McJimsey Arachnoprince Old Timer

    I thought G.pulchripes was G.mollicoma? :?
  18. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

    Hi Ryan,

    Good ones will :)
    At first, IMO, they should label them as such:
    Grammostola pulchripes (formerly G. aureostriata)

    This will reduce the confusion that would arise for those hobbyists not aware of the change.

    That's true, the use of that name in the hobby has no relevance. (In relation to the precedence issue you brought up)

    But, why would you want to? As old types are continually examined, and new research done, this is just one of MANY changes in nomenclature that are sure to come. Hobbyists need to learn to embrace these changes.

    Last edited: Apr 4, 2009
  19. pato_chacoana

    pato_chacoana Arachnoangel

    Well this is great. The Grammostola genus keeps getting better. I wonder how many of the people writing Grammostola papers ever saw a Grammostola in the wild...hehe, or are aware of that the spider that in the USA and Europe was being called G. aureostriata all these years is quite different than the one sent in the first place for the G. aureostriata description.....
  20. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

    Hi Pato,

    In this case, I don't understand how seeing them in the wild would make any difference at all? That's not what the paper is about. The relevant specimens for this paper can't be found in the wild. The only thing that matters (in this particular case) is to look at the type specimens.

    I know you were being a bit facetious, but housecleaning such as this is critical in the genus "getting better".

    Ok, I've commented enough in this thread I do believe, off to enjoy my afternoon and drink some good IPA's. :)

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.