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. pato_chacoana

    pato_chacoana Arachnoangel

    Advertisement
    No need to get upset Eric!

    Ok, maybe it sounded bad what I wrote or just didn't express myself correctly. By ''keeps getting better'', I didn't mean that this particular paper would make it worse. Maybe in fact this paper does good to the genus, I really couldn't tell 'cause I haven't read it.
    It's just a very difficult genus to clear up, and it won't be for many years if not ever. That is what is annoying to me, not the honest people who wants to work in the genus.
    So you say the specimens can't be found in the wild? Why's that? Are they extinct? I'm curious. It is important to work in the field too, but I get what you say about type material examination only...

    I'm curious about this species as I'm curious about all the Theraphosids from my country. I know the person who collected the type for the G. aureostriata description in 2001 and I've seen these spiders. But also I've seen another ''G. aureostriata'' that is different, and this spider is the one I've seen in the international hobby more often. I personally think they are two different species.

    Best regards,
    Pato
     
  2. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

    Hello Pato,

    Of course not! :) I'm quite happy... must just be the internet lingo!

    No, no. What I mean is that for the purpose of the paper being discussed here, observing specimens in the wild is of no importance. The only thing of importance is to examine the actual type specimens. Is that more clear?

    That's interesting Pato... no comments from me on that topic!

    Eric
     
  3. pato_chacoana

    pato_chacoana Arachnoangel

    Hi Eric!

    Oh yes, I get what you mean about the types examination. It's always really good to be able to make such studies! I'm really looking forward to read the paper, I hope it's available :)

    Yes it's interesting about the two G. aureostriata, I discussed this with Colin D. Wilson in the BTS forum, who also is aware of this:

    http://thebts.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4550&page=2

    Again, I'm sorry about my first post, I didn't express myself correctly.
    Best regards,

    Pato-
     
  4. The international rules for formal nomenclature are not just for the benefit of scientists, but for everyone. A nomenclatural system ensures that our communication about systematic hypotheses are as accurate as possible. For instance, using the correct scientific names are critical to medical treatment, conservation issues, or simply casual discussion. Considering how vehement pro and con discussions about hobbyist hybridization get on AB, it follows that accurate adoption of nomenclature is essential. Otherwise, our communication suffers.
     
  5. metallica

    metallica Arachnoking Old Timer

    is the paper in a peer reviewed journal?
     
  6. Hamburglar

    Hamburglar Arachnobaron Old Timer

    Forgive my typical ignorance.. I am confused a bit by this post. In the first paragraph you state that systematists will use the older name because of historical precedence. Isn't G. pulchripes the older name in this instance? If G. aureostriata was described in 2001 how does it move ahead?
     
  7. Yes, G. pulchripes is the older name, and thus has priority of use over G. aureostriata. The latter name has been placed into synonymy with the former. In other words, G. aureostriata should no longer be used.

    Sorry for reversing the order in my last sentence in my earlier post!
     
  8. pato_chacoana

    pato_chacoana Arachnoangel

    Yes...that is IF they are in fact the same species.
     
  9. Yes well, that is the whole basis for the synonymy, now isn't it?
     
  10. Endagr8

    Endagr8 Arachnoangel

    UGH...reminds me of singapore blues.

    How frustrating. :wall: :wall: :wall:
     
  11. metallica

    metallica Arachnoking Old Timer

    why? that was described only once.
     
  12. Endagr8

    Endagr8 Arachnoangel

    Yes, but the whole Cyriopagopus-Lampropelma garbage?
     
  13. bliss

    bliss Arachnoprince Old Timer

    yes but, Cyriopagopus sp Singapore blue was the incorrect name.. the original description of what is sold in the hobby as Singapore blue is actually L. violaceps. The old L violaceps is now referred to as Ornithoctoninae G. sp Robustum, and that particular species was sold earlier in the hobby as "Haplopelma robustum" which was an incorrect name as well..

    Basically, there was an mismatch in names, and one of those names was a incorrect.

    whereas with this situation, there is only one suspect species, with two names, simply the one name "aureostriata" is a junior synonym. Since pulchripes is the older name, it takes the spot of aureostriata.


    if i'm wrong on any count, point to me my mistakes :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2009
  14. Aarantula

    Aarantula Arachnobaron Old Timer

    NJ
    Who's on first...? :?
     
  15. Isn't Lampropelma violaceopes Abraham, 1924, still a valid species? Are you only talking about formal and informal names as they've been thrown around in the hobby?
     
  16. PhilR

    PhilR Arachnoknight

    Yes it is. The spider formerly known as Cyriopagopus sp. blue in the hobby has been found to actually be L. violaceopes.
     
  17. dtknow

    dtknow Arachnoking Old Timer

    CA
    Their was a stir on another forum about the newt Mesotriton alpestris having a paper published making this name the synonym of some ancient name Ichthyosaura alpestris.

    Is their any coincidence that genuses somewhat related to each other tend to be similarly named(often using a similar latin prefix or suffix)? Is this a conscious effort of taxonomists to make things easier?
     
  18. Naming genera (not 'genuses') is sometimes just a matter of taste of the individual formally designating the names in a publication. For some of the genera I've described, I have used names somewhat similar to others, e.g. Pseudoaugeneriella in reference to Augeneriella, or Novafabricia in reference to Fabricia. But on other occasions, I decided to use anagrams simply because I thought it would be amusing, e.g. Brifacia and Raficiba (anagrams of Fabricia).

    There's a genus of spiders from Hawaii called Orsonwelles, after the somewhat rotund actor, Orson Welles.
     
  19. Drachenjager

    Drachenjager Arachnoemperor Old Timer

    how bout calling them Grammostola pulchripes (formerly G. aureostriata) (formerly G. pulchripes) (because we have no clue what we are doing here)

    sorry all the name changes make me want to go back to common names lol Remember at one time they were all Avicularia lol
     
  20. John Kanker

    John Kanker Arachnosquire

    Hi.
    sorry I asked this in a different thread but got no reply to it.

    Anyway can you help I don't quite understand that G. aureostriata paper as there are a couple of points in it that don't make much sense to me.
    For example on page 4 it says how the synonymy of G. pulchripes with G. grossa appears to have been based on “pet trade” material and the specimen of G. pulchripes was not compared with the type specimen of G. pulchripes, making the synonymy quite dubious, but earlier on in the paper on page 3, it says the specimens of G. aureostriata used in this paper are from the author’s personal collection! At no time does it say that the author even looked at the holotype of G. aureostriata so how does he know his personal collection is the same as what Schmidt & Bullmer discribed? Would or could this not make the synonymy seem dubious also? After all there are no comparative drawings or anything to even try and back up the claims so it is like, you just have to believe it just because the author says it is so. Surely if the author was not able to view the types for whatever reason it should have been put in the paper, but there is no mention of them. I'm not saying the author is wrong, I'm just pointing out that the paper seems a little poor in a few places, but maybe that’s just me.

    Thanks
    John
     
  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.