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

[creepa]

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

(Hitler Neurenberg speach mode on)

What would Giacomo Doria say if he could read your posts on this subject?
I guess he would rant to you in that typical Itallian fashion with balled fist and chin flicks...

We as scientific name nazi's from the old world where true taxonomy originates from should form a unified front against all common name users!!
We should stand hand in hand against those ignorent hobbyists and not let us be divided by name changes!!

scientific name above all!!

 

[TomKemp]

They changed the scientific name to Cyriopagopus Lividum. That's what it is.

 

[Chris LXXIX]

(Hitler Neurenberg speach mode on)

What would Giacomo Doria say if he could read your posts on this subject?
I guess he would rant to you in that typical Itallian fashion with balled fist and chin flicks...

We as scientific name nazi's from the old world where true taxonomy originates from should form a unified front against all common name users!!
We should stand hand in hand against those ignorent hobbyists and not let us be divided by name changes!!

scientific name above all!!

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

Cyriopagopus lividum

or C.lividum

 

[creepa]

Cyriopagopus lividus...

 

[Angel Minkov]

OP, the Avicularia changes were made by real taxonomists, not wannabes like Michael Jacobi... Not to mention there was ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON BETWEEN C. paganus and H. doriae for them to make Haplopelma a junior synonym of Cyriopagopus. According to asian experts like S. Rafn and V. Vonwirth, they ARE NOT Cyriopagopus. Its up to you who to trust

 

[creepa]

OP, the Avicularia changes were made by real taxonomists, not wannabes like Michael Jacobi... Not to mention there was ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON BETWEEN C. paganus and H. doriae for them to make Haplopelma a junior synonym of Cyriopagopus. According to asian experts like S. Rafn and V. Vonwirth, they ARE NOT Cyriopagopus. Its up to you who to trust

I absolutly agree with you (even on the wannabe part, but i dont have the stones to say that in public) but who am i to judge the paper by Smith and Jacobi...
I am not a taxonomist but Platnick accepted the revision and that is where the confusion starts.
So as long as Volker and Søren or even Steve dont come with a paper that proves otherwhise than Smith and Jacobi's paper is still legit even if it is incorrect.

 

[kevinlowl]

Ham livid! is the correct name.

 

[Angel Minkov]

Platnick does not review the papers himself. Their paper is at best a guess when they haven't seen the type specimens and compared them. Period.

 

[creepa]

Platnick does not review the papers himself. Their paper is at best a guess when they haven't seen the type specimens and compared them. Period.

Like i sayd: thats where the confusion starts...

but until there is a complete revision on the Ornithoctoninae subfamily and especialy on the Haplopelma/Cyriopagopus genera the paper of Smith and Jacobi is valid.

And i hope this will be cleared soon!!

 

[boina]

I absolutly agree with you (even on the wannabe part, but i dont have the stones to say that in public) but who am i to judge the paper by Smith and Jacobi...
I am not a taxonomist but Platnick accepted the revision and that is where the confusion starts.
So as long as Volker and Søren or even Steve dont come with a paper that proves otherwhise than Smith and Jacobi's paper is still legit even if it is incorrect.

Who decides if a paper is legit?

Because the one I've seen from 2015 was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Can anyone just go and write a paper and if he/she gets someone to publish it, it's legit? I mean if you take this further you can just make something up and publish it online and ... legit? Or haven't I seen the *real*, peer reviewed paper?
I'm with @Angel Minkov on this one - I don't think the paper is valid and since it hasn't been peer reviewed I don't feel compelled to follow it's suggestions. Or do the people at the World Spider Catalogue have the ultimate say? (They accepted parts of the paper, but not other parts.)

Please, if I missed the peer reviewed paper, can someone point me to it?

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Cyriopagopus lividus...

Eh eh

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Cyriopagopus lividus...

creepa my man from lovely van Gogh (and van Basten) landia, since you are a true OW loyalist, I wish to know your honest opinion about the Goddess 0.1 Pelinobius muticus PBUH (Peace Be Upon Her) before "walking" myself further (or Führer, since we are OW scientific name Nazi's) into the exciting Haplopelma lividum - Cyriopagopus lividum 'maze' that, hands down, would become indeed the climax of my day

 

[Rob1985]

I'm struggling to understand why this topic needed another thread when it has several others.

 

[creepa]

Who decides if a paper is legit?

Because the one I've seen from 2015 was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Can anyone just go and write a paper and if he/she gets someone to publish it, it's legit? I mean if you take this further you can just make something up and publish it online and ... legit? Or haven't I seen the *real*, peer reviewed paper?
I'm with @Angel Minkov on this one - I don't think the paper is valid and since it hasn't been peer reviewed I don't feel compelled to follow it's suggestions. Or do the people at the World Spider Catalogue have the ultimate say? (They accepted parts of the paper, but not other parts.)

Please, if I missed the peer reviewed paper, can someone point me to it?

Good question...., that i realy cant answer.
I allways followed the world spider catalogue bacause i allways thought that Dr. Platnick himself viewed all the papers, but aparently according to @Angel Minkov he does not.
So for me this is still a bit confusing.

I agree that S. Rafn and V. von Wirth are the leading experts on Asian Theraphosidae so i hope that they will come with a paper soon to end this confusing discussion.

 

[creepa]

creepa my man from lovely van Gogh (and van Basten) landia, since you are a true OW loyalist, I wish to know your honest opinion about the Goddess 0.1 Pelinobius muticus PBUH (Peace Be Upon Her) before "walking" myself further (or Führer, since we are OW scientific name Nazi's) into the exciting Haplopelma lividum - Cyriopagopus lividum 'maze' that, hands down, would become indeed the climax of my day

If there is any baboon species beside Monocentropus lambertoni to come in my Asian collection it would be the Queen...
I had a 0.1 Pelinobius muticus in the past before i started to focus on Asian species and i traded her of for a bunch of Asian slings and the minute i did it that i felt i would regret that...

So after i am finished with collecting the Ornithoctoninae and Selenocosmiinae i want a gorgeous queen probably will be comming back in my collection.

 

[Chris LXXIX]

If there is any baboon species beside Monocentropus lambertoni to come in my Asian collection it would be the Queen...
I had a 0.1 Pelinobius muticus in the past before i started to focus on Asian species and i traded her of for a bunch of Asian slings and the minute i did it that i felt i would regret that...

So after i am finished with collecting the Ornithoctoninae and Selenocosmiinae i want a gorgeous queen probably will be comming back in my collection.

Bravo! Redemption, my man. Redemption. The Goddess 0.1 Pelinobius muticus PBUH (Peace Be Upon Her) is a forgiving, benign Mother

 

[advan]

Maybe Melopoeus lividus in time.

 

[boina]

Good question...., that i realy cant answer.
I allways followed the world spider catalogue bacause i allways thought that Dr. Platnick himself viewed all the papers, but aparently according to @Angel Minkov he does not.
So for me this is still a bit confusing.

I agree that S. Rafn and V. von Wirth are the leading experts on Asian Theraphosidae so i hope that they will come with a paper soon to end this confusing discussion.

From the WSC site (introduction):
"With the retirement of Platnick in 2014, the Natural History Museum Bern (Switzerland) accepted to continue Platnick’s work and took over the World Spider Catalog."
According to them an "expert board" will decide on which nomenclature to follow.

(Volker von Wirth had some choice words to say about the Smith/Jacobi paper, or so I've been told, purely hear-say . Let's hope he puts some more scientific words in a publication.)

And yep, confusing is what it is.

 

[advan]

OP, the Avicularia changes were made by real taxonomists, not wannabes like Michael Jacobi... Not to mention there was ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON BETWEEN C. paganus and H. doriae for them to make Haplopelma a junior synonym of Cyriopagopus. According to asian experts like S. Rafn and V. Vonwirth, they ARE NOT Cyriopagopus. Its up to you who to trust

LOL Wannabe. How do they know what Cyriopagopus is when they can't get access to the type material? It has been guessed it might be what we call Ornithoctonus right now. If it is then that name goes away and replaced.

H. doriae is nothing like the mainland "Haplopelma" so it may stay Haplopelma and Melopoeus resurrected to place the mainland species. Where does this leave the arboreals once in Cyriopagopus? Maybe left in Omothymus.

Now some back story for the "revision". Smith was sitting on the Phormingochilus pennellhewletti material for almost 8 years. They pushed for him to finally do something with it. Why did they decide to tackle other things and "shake" things up? Motivation. It was to give Wirth and Rafn the push they need to get Ornithoctoninae work done. Hopefully Wirth will start tackling it once he and Nunn are done with Selenocosmiinae.

 

[Caseyface]

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

Ah, yes. They must in bed with Brother label makers...