H or C lividum... let's clear this up once and for all

Moakmeister · Apr 16, 2017

Is this tarantula a member of the Haplopelma or the Cyriopagopus genus?
A few years ago, it was definitely in the Haplopelma genus, but it was changed to Cyriopagopus. However, I still see people calling it the H. lividum, with some people claiming that it was switched back to the Haplopelma genus. So let's clear this up once and for all.

Walker253 · Apr 16, 2017

Chris LXXIX · Apr 16, 2017

Mah... for me it's easy: there's nothing to clear, I don't care, I don't give a F-Word.

I've spent more than 15 years with Haplopelma lividum, and my 'brain' refuse to accept the new name/whatnot change. So for me remains the only 'blue' I love: Haplopelma lividum :-s

WhyUBiteBite · Apr 16, 2017

Sometimes I wonder if the scientists rename them just to have something to do or to make us change our friggin labels...

TownesVanZandt · Apr 16, 2017

I still call it H. lividum and will probably continue to do so as old habits die hard. The name cannot be Cyriopagopus lividum as Cyriopagopus is masculine in Latin. The name would be Cyriopagopus lividus in that case.

Venom1080 · Apr 16, 2017

its Cyriopagopus lividus , for petes sake. its been so for a loong time.

KezyGLA · Apr 16, 2017

Cyriopagopus lividus.

Whats so difficult?

creepa · Apr 17, 2017

Chris LXXIX said:
Mah... for me it's easy: there's nothing to clear, I don't care, I don't give a F-Word.

I've spent more than 15 years with Haplopelma lividum, and my 'brain' refuse to accept the new name/whatnot change. So for me remains the only 'blue' I love: Haplopelma lividum :-s

C'mon Chris, we as scientific name nazi's shouldnt think like this...!!
We schould embrace the scientific name above any common name!
And if the name has changed, we as scientific name nazi's schould stick to it even if its not fully exepted yet by the whole arachno culture...

Scientific name is and schould allways be scientific name!!

KezyGLA · Apr 17, 2017

@Chris LXXIX bro, calling you a nazi.

.. not cool man.

gypsy cola · Apr 17, 2017

I am going to call them H.lividium. If I am going to breed it and sell it, it will be C.lividium

anyone else think this spider sounds like a Harry Potter spell?

Venom1080 · Apr 17, 2017

gypsy cola said:
I am going to call them H.lividium. If I am going to breed it and sell it, it will be C.lividium

anyone else think this spider sounds like a Harry Potter spell?

those are both wrong. and spelled wrong.

gypsy cola · Apr 17, 2017

Venom1080 said:
those are both wrong. and spelled wrong.

Well its my house, I can do whatever I want and name them whatever I want, like not wearing pants

Professional setting I am going to call them the correct name, and wear pants

Chris LXXIX · Apr 17, 2017

creepa said:
C'mon Chris, we as scientific name nazi's shouldnt think like this...!!
We schould embrace the scientific name above any common name!
And if the name has changed, we as scientific name nazi's schould stick to it even if its not fully exepted yet by the whole arachno culture...

Scientific name is and schould allways be scientific name!!

I know what you mean, man. Go figure. Just that you don't have the idea of how much hard for me is to 'reset' and accept those new names especially since arachno-pundits persists into ignoring mine when it comes to the Goddess 0.1 Pelinobius muticus PBUH (Peace Be Upon Her)

creepa · Apr 17, 2017

Chris LXXIX said:
I know what you mean, man. Go figure. Just that you don't have the idea of how much hard for me is to 'reset' and accept those new names especially since arachno-pundits persists into ignoring mine when it comes to the Goddess 0.1 Pelinobius muticus PBUH (Peace Be Upon Her)

I wonder how long it took you to adjust to Pelinobius muticus instead of Citharischius crawshayi then...?
Or was that an insta switch flipped because she is the queen of all queens?

klawfran3 · Apr 17, 2017

If it was reviewed, changed, and published it should be Cyriopagopus lividus. Names change constantly in taxonomy and complaining about it or fighting it just makes you seem childish. If someone else reviews the genus and discovered that it should be H. lividum again then so be it, but for a bunch of hobbyists that decide common names are awful and shouldn't be used, you guys sure are being hypocritical by saying you should call it what you want.

Taxonomy is not a pick and choose thing. Just because you believe something to be otherwise doesn't change it. Unless it is proven by an actual scientist to be incorrect, hobbyists really don't have a say in the naming or taxonomic change of scientific species.

Also comparing people who follow taxonomy closely to Nazis is just immature, but surprisingly a very good example of Godwins Law.

I haven't been back to Arachnoboards for some time now after leaving the hobby but it has changed so much. There isn't any respect, and many people seem like they need babysitters.

Moakmeister · Apr 17, 2017

klawfran3 said:
If it was reviewed, changed, and published it should be Cyriopagopus lividus. Names change constantly in taxonomy and complaining about it or fighting it just makes you seem childish. If someone else reviews the genus and discovered that it should be H. lividum again then so be it, but for a bunch of hobbyists that decide common names are awful and shouldn't be used, you guys sure are being hypocritical by saying you should call it what you want.

Taxonomy is not a pick and choose thing. Just because you believe something to be otherwise doesn't change it. Unless it is proven by an actual scientist to be incorrect, hobbyists really don't have a say in the naming or taxonomic change of scientific species.

Also comparing people who follow taxonomy closely to Nazis is just immature, dumb, and a very good example of Godwins Law.

I haven't been back to Arachnoboards for some time now after leaving the hobby but it has changed so much. There isn't any respect, and many people seem like they need babysitters.

Well for the most part we do adhere to name changes. Everyone switched VERY quickly to the Avicularia genus revision. This species seems to be the one and only exception.

edesign · Apr 17, 2017

I agree with klaw. Use the new names, period, end of story. There's enough confusion with names as it is. It's one thing if it's a very recent change but this was changed almost a year and a half ago.

Moakmeister said:
Well for the most part we do adhere to name changes. Everyone switched VERY quickly to the Avicularia genus revision. This species seems to be the one and only exception.

Try looking around for Lampropelma/Omothymus violaceopes

Moakmeister · Apr 17, 2017

edesign said:
Try looking around for Lampropelma/Omothymus violaceopes

Oh yeah I forgot about that. Plenty of people still using Lampropelma.

Chris LXXIX · Apr 17, 2017

creepa said:
I wonder how long it took you to adjust to Pelinobius muticus instead of Citharischius crawshayi then...?
Or was that an insta switch flipped because she is the queen of all queens?

No prob... IMO Pelinobius muticus has written 'easy spell' all over it: a gift for the Goddess, indeed, since She deserved a genus only for Her

creepa · Apr 18, 2017

Moakmeister said:
Oh yeah I forgot about that. Plenty of people still using Lampropelma.

Omothymus violaceopes is not accepted by Platnick it is still Lampropelma violaceopes..., so i guess that name change is not correct.

H or C lividum... let's clear this up once and for all

Arachnoangel

Arachnobaron

ArachnoGod

Arachnosquire

Arachnoprince

Arachnoemperor

Arachnoking

Arachnoknight

Arachnoking

Arachnoknight

Arachnoemperor

Arachnoknight

ArachnoGod

Arachnoknight

Arachnolord

Arachnoangel

AB FB Group Moderatr

Arachnoangel

ArachnoGod

Arachnoknight