How do you all remember tarantula names when everyone always shortens the genus?

[Ungoliant]

I'm still looking for an in depth explanation of sp. on the web, but I can't find anything - it seem this question has not come up yet, unbelievable as it is .

I recall reading some good information on this topic but can't find it anymore. So I'll just quote in brief a few comments on when to use "sp."

Unknown or unspecified species

When referring to an unidentified species, use the abbreviation "sp.": The meadow contained several sedge plants (Carex sp.). The plural form is "spp.": The forest floor contained several species of pixie cup lichen (Cladonia spp.). The "sp." and "spp." labels are not italicized.

Writing binomial names

The abbreviation "sp." is used when the actual specific name cannot or need not be specified. The abbreviation "spp." (plural) indicates "several species". These abbreviations are not italicised (or underlined). For example: "Canis sp." means "an unspecified species of the genus Canis", while "Canis spp." means "two or more species of the genus Canis".

Abbreviations

Books and articles sometimes intentionally do not identify species fully and use the abbreviation "sp." in the singular or "spp." (standing for species pluralis, the Latin for multiple species) in the plural in place of the specific name or epithet (e.g. Canis sp.) This commonly occurs when authors are confident that some individuals belong to a particular genus but are not sure to which exact species they belong, as is common in paleontology. Authors may also use "spp." as a short way of saying that something applies to many species within a genus, but not to all. If scientists mean that something applies to all species within a genus, they use the genus name without the specific name or epithet. The names of genera and species are usually printed in italics. Abbreviations such as "sp." should not be italicized.

 

[Trenor]

No, there is no difference, sp.means species - any species - every time. Both mean a kind of Aphonopelma species. "neuse river" has no biological significance, it's not a valid name. You can decide tomorow to call it something else and nobody can question you.

So what your saying is when we use Hapalopus sp. Colombia (large or small) it's not much better than a common name and I can call it Hapalopus sp. Carrot and that is just as valid?

Edit: Just because one study merged both highland and lowland into one species doesn't mean it's right - it may be right, or it may not. At the moment it seems to be questioned, at least by some people. You do not need to write another study to decide you do not want to follow that studies reasoning. Taxonomy is about consensus.

By that thinking every study can be considered suspect if you can convince a handful of people it is wrong. You don't even have to show evidence. It just seems to me that some people decided nope without having much to show why what they thought was so. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong.

Edit: I really don't want you to think I'm fussing at you. I'm just really not getting how flaky all of this is sounding.

@AphonopelmaTX Don't you do some taxonomy stuff? What does someone need to look for when deciding what species a tarantula is? How does this all work?

 

[Trenor]

I recall reading some good information on this topic but can't find it anymore. So I'll just quote in brief a few comments on when to use "sp."

Cool, that was a good breakdown. I understand this part I think.

My confusion is coming in when you put something behind the sp. (like sp. "somthing") which sounds to me like it's pretty much one step up from a common name. Since it could vary from group to group and all you really know is the genus but nothing else of value.

 

[Ungoliant]

My confusion is coming in when you put something behind the sp. (like sp. "somthing") which sounds to me like it's pretty much one step up from a common name. Since it could vary from group to group and all you really know is the genus but nothing else of value.

That's how I view it as well, and I don't think scientific literature appends such nicknames to unidentified species.

To wit, Poecilotheria sp. "lowland" is just hobby-speak for an unidentified species of Poecilotheria that some hobbyists have nicknamed "lowland" in the absence of an accepted scientific identification.

This may or may not actually be a distinct species, but some hobbyists see enough differences to question its placement within one of the known species. (I don't pretend to be an expert on Poecilotheria taxonomy, so I am not weighing in on this particular debate, just explaining the nomenclature.)

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

So what your saying is when we use Hapalopus sp. Colombia (large or small) it's not much better than a common name and I can call it Hapalopus sp. Carrot and that is just as valid?


By that thinking every study can be considered suspect if you can convince a handful of people it is wrong. You don't even have to show evidence. It just seems to me that some people decided nope without having much to show why what they thought was so. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong.

Edit: I really don't want you to think I'm fussing at you. I'm just really not getting how flaky all of this is sounding.

@AphonopelmaTX Don't you do some taxonomy stuff? What does someone need to look for when deciding what species a tarantula is? How does this all work?

Ungoliant provided a good break down of the use of "sp." and "spp." so I won't go into that. I am not a taxonomist, never have been. What I do is keep up-to-date on the latest taxonomic research and use it to identify tarantulas mostly in the pet trade to their proper taxonomic rank (subfamily, genus, species) based on that published research. I also like to follow along, if you will, with the taxonomic descriptions and their illustrations to see what the characters used to define a taxonomic rank actually look like. For example, one of the characters for the genus Theraphosa is a stridulatory organ consisting of plumose setae on the retrolateral palpal coxa and trochanter; plumose setae on the pro- and retro-lateral coxa and trochanter of leg1; plumose setae on the prolateral coxa and trochanter of leg 2." Well, I want to know what that actually looks like so I use the molts of my own spiders sold to me as a Theraphosa species and examine them under the microscope. Doing this over and over with different tarantulas in my own collection, I can come to the conclusion that the scientific name given to a tarantula in the hobby should be suspect and is usually wrong.

To answer the question of "what does someone need to look for when deciding what species a tarantula is?" can be summed up as looking for the characters taxonomists have determined are useful to define a specific taxonomic rank (family, subfamily, genus, species). Taxonomists when they publish their work include a diagnosis of the subfamily, genus, and/or or species that list these characters. For example, the recent revision of the red legged Brachypelma species includes the characters to look for that define the genus Brachypelma as well as the characters that define the species Brachypelma hamorii and Brachypelma smithi. To determine what species a tarantula is whether in the hobby or for one found in the wild, one must use this diagnosis and compare them to what is seen on the actual physical spider.

People don't usually take the time to do that with tarantulas sold in the pet trade and you get scientific names assigned to tarantulas that are flat out wrong. Since I already mentioned Euathlus sp. "Red" and "Yellow" in this thread I will use it again. No importer, exporter, seller, etc. has actually taken the time to key these Chilean tarantulas to genus level and for what I can assume just guessed at calling them Euathlus sp. Well, Radan Kaderka a taxonomist from the Czech Republic, did and posted pictures of key taxonomic characters for these two species on his web site to which you can clearly see that they are a Homoeomma species. To be brief, the papal bulbs of these Euathlus sp. Red and Yellow have a tegular apophysis which is a character of Homoeomma and not Euathlus. So to determine what genus these little Chilean tarantulas actually belong to, first have a mature male die. Then remove the papal bulb from the cymbium and compare what you see from your tarantula to the characters of all genus of South American tarantulas. Eventually, you will come across taxonomic papers on the genus Homoeomma to which the written description and illustrations of the papal bulb match what you see on your own specimen. Thus, you can key your Euathlus sp. "Red" to being actually a Homoeomma sp. Since these two tarantulas haven't been formally described, you add the "sp." after the genus to designate that this is an undescribed species of Homoeomma.

That is how one determines what species, or genus, of tarantula they are dealing with.

Cool, that was a good breakdown. I understand this part I think.

My confusion is coming in when you put something behind the sp. (like sp. "somthing") which sounds to me like it's pretty much one step up from a common name. Since it could vary from group to group and all you really know is the genus but nothing else of value.

The "something" after the "sp." in the case of an undetermined or undescribed species of a genus can be as useful as the person who sells or trades a tarantula with it. We are talking about something hobbiests do to distinguish one tarantula from another so there isn't any official rules to use. At the end of the day, it really doesn't have any value even if that "something" is a location like Hapalopus sp. Colombia. Ok, where in Colombia?

 

[Trenor]

@AphonopelmaTX Thanks, that was great information.

 

[boina]

By that thinking every study can be considered suspect if you can convince a handful of people it is wrong. You don't even have to show evidence. It just seems to me that some people decided nope without having much to show why what they thought was so. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong.

Basically I think we covered most points in this discussion, but I just want to comment on this:

Yes, every study is suspect by definition until it has been confirmed and generally accepted. And sometimes (in Taxonomy: often?) it gets accepted before it has been confirmed and then sometime later it all gets overthrown. Personal example: This new study about Avicularia and related puts Stromatopelma and Heteroscodra in Aviculariinae, citing evidence I personally find exeedingly thin. I wont accept that part of the study and I can cite scientific reasons for that. Yes, I'm questioning the conclusions of that study, as I have every right to do so.

By the way, I liked discussing this with you

 

[Trenor]

Fair enough, I just figured that by the time the study got accepted into the WSC someone had reviewed it enough to make sure it somewhat valid. I've seen several studies that got rejected from there but I'm not sure what their review process is. I know that species can get moved around (a lot sometimes it seems) as more information comes in on them. So it's not set in stone. I just figured it was reviewed better then it seems to be.

I'm curious now though. I'll have to do some digging and see if I can find out what people are disagreeing on in the case of Poecilotheria subfusca.

Thanks, I tend to ask questions that I'm wondering about in my posts. Some people take that as I'm badgering them but that's just my process for how I think things through. It's nice to be able to discuss topics without people getting overly touchy.

 

[Elchaco94]

If it is a spider I am interested in, I'll manage to remember it in most cases, but when someone drops "A.seemani" or "A.minatrix" in a casual conversation, I have no clue what they are talking about, even if I am familiar with the spider.
I'll look at some picture of a beautiful spider on the front page with an A, C, L, or T in front of a generic species name, and have no idea what it actually is.

I know this thread is fairly old but in my opinion it depends seeing more and more of the names and genuses and just becoming familiar. I am new to the hobby and recognize a fair few species. There are so many different T's, it will be years before anyone (depending on the person) can identify the majority of the most common T's in the hobby. Depends on where you are from too.

 

[grumpycow3]

if i dont know one i just highlight it and press google "insert t name here"

 

[Swoop]

I read almost this entire thread and now I feel smart

Personally I don't sweat the genus as long as I recognize the species name. Something like C. lividum? No clue what the C. stands for and I probably couldn't spell it if I did, but I know it's a blue OW species because I've seen it discussed many times.

As for the common names vs. Latin names, it has been my experience that people who rely on common names either mis-identify their T's or don't have them housed correctly. My first 'suntiger' was a supposed juvenile that turned out to be a small MM. My second 'suntiger' turned out to be a P. cambridgei. It's likely both sellers got them from a particular pet shop nearby that carries lots of species of T's but doesn't label them with Latin names and makes up their own common names. I have a kritter keeper labeled 'nigerian goliath baboon', it was and is housing a juvenile Brachypelma albopilosum when I got it but I googled nigerian goliath baboon and my best guess, it originally housed a P. muticus.

Common names have their place though. GBB? Nothing ambiguous about that one. Curlyhair, same story. I mix up P. murinus and P. muticus all the time, but when they're called OBT and King Baboon it's easy to remember which is which.