Lampropelma or Omothymus and taxonomy question.

[Arachnomaniac19]

So why is Omothymus violaceopes back to Lampropelma, if it even is? Also, in regards to the whole Haplopelma thing, is it scientifically correct to still label them as Haplopelma since a scientific paper is pretty much just a "suggestion" (with evidence) for other people to start using a different name? That is if I'm understanding things correctly. On the same subject, what is (are) the reason(s) that Haplopelma is and is not considered valid?

 

[Arachnomaniac19]

Bump

 

[ledzeppelin]

Violaceopes is back to Lampropelma because there was no sufficient criteria to put it in Omothymus genus in the first place

 

[Arachnomaniac19]

Violaceopes is back to Lampropelma because there was no sufficient criteria to put it in Omothymus genus in the first place

So pretty much nobody read the paper, or did a new paper come along?

 

[ledzeppelin]

So pretty much nobody read the paper, or did a new paper come along?

http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/species/37616

 

[AracKnight]

Well, the only justification of this transfer given by Smith&Jacobi is "while examining this species it became immediately obvious, that it should have been described as a Cyriopagopus, thus Omothymus."
This is just not a valid scientific argument, so it was not followed. Additionally it is possible that the examined Male is a misidentified C/O. schiodtei. So this transfer is very doubtful.

If I get the ICZN right, it is (scientifically) incorrect to not use a new name published in a valid paper. But if you go with this, the Paper of Smith&Jacobi is actually invalid, cause if it would be valid Schmidts paper transferring some Haplopelma spp. to Melopoeus within would also be valid an thus Smith&Jacobis would be invalid cause they did not use these Melopoeus names.

 

[kevinlowl]

Well, the only justification of this transfer given by Smith&Jacobi is "while examining this species it became immediately obvious, that it should have been described as a Cyriopagopus, thus Omothymus."
This is just not a valid scientific argument, so it was not followed.

How does that even make it into a scientific paper?

 

[AracKnight]

How does that even make it into a scientific paper?

Good question. That's the reason so many people 'ignore' this paper and are going on with the Lampropelma and Haplopelma labelings. Cause the rest isn't done much more better.
The descriptions of the characteristics are very imprecise and there are no pictures, not even drawings of them. The whole transfer/synonymization of Haplopelma and Cyriopagopus is based on a "raised caput", "small round ocular tubercle","wide clypeus" and "fused spermathecae". No word about whether C. paganus has the characteristics von Wirth&Striffler described for Haplopelma. Smith&Jacobi did not even examine the holotype of Haplopelma or any other Haplopelma species to check their suspicion. Even further there are some Ornithoctonus species wich also have the charactersistics given above.
So Smith&Jacobi might be right, that C. paganus does not belong to the same genus as the rest of Cyriopagopus species, but to synonymize it with Haplopelma is just guessing, no proper scientific work.

 

[edesign]

From what I've gathered reading Jacobi's comments amongst others is that it was info Smith had had for a while that was published to hopefully give Von Wirth and others specialising in Asian species the incentive to publish their own papers to straighten things out.

I could be wrong...

 

[edesign]

Smith&Jacobi did not even examine the holotype of Haplopelma or any other Haplopelma species to check their suspicion. Even further there are some Ornithoctonus species wich also

They were denied access to a certain holotype. I forget which one. Don't think it was a Haplo.

 

[AracKnight]

From what I've gathered reading Jacobi's comments amongst others is that it was info Smith had had for a while that was published to hopefully give Von Wirth and others specialising in Asian species the incentive to publish their own papers to straighten things out.

I could be wrong...

I don't think so. Cause in that case they could simply cooperate. A main problem for von Wirth is, that he doesn't get access to the C. paganus type Smith&Jacobi examined. If they would provide PROPER information about it instead of some vague descriptions without any pictures/drawings, it may be possible to clarify this mess.

They were denied access to a certain holotype. I forget which one. Don't think it was a Haplo.

Didn't hear about that, but even if it's the case, why did they perform this change and did not just hint it and delay it for further examination like all other scientists?

 

[boina]

How does that even make it into a scientific paper?

Because it wasn't a peer reviewed paper. It was published by BTS, which is, with all due respect, basically a journal for the informed amateur. I find it rather interesting that the WSC followed some of their suggestions, but not all.

Good question. That's the reason so many people 'ignore' this paper and are going on with the Lampropelma and Haplopelma labelings. Cause the rest isn't done much more better.
The descriptions of the characteristics are very imprecise and there are no pictures, not even drawings of them. The whole transfer/synonymization of Haplopelma and Cyriopagopus is based on a "raised caput", "small round ocular tubercle","wide clypeus" and "fused spermathecae". No word about whether C. paganus has the characteristics von Wirth&Striffler described for Haplopelma. Smith&Jacobi did not even examine the holotype of Haplopelma or any other Haplopelma species to check their suspicion. Even further there are some Ornithoctonus species wich also have the charactersistics given above.
So Smith&Jacobi might be right, that C. paganus does not belong to the same genus as the rest of Cyriopagopus species, but to synonymize it with Haplopelma is just guessing, no proper scientific work.

Exactly. That's why it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[edesign]

I don't think so. Cause in that case they could simply cooperate.

From what I gathered they weren't in a rush to work on it with them. You act like they don't know each other and never talk lol. I just know what I've read. And as was pointed out this was NOT a peer reviewed paper. It wasn't up to the authors whether to officially apply the changes. They simply wrote their thoughts. A BTS journal article isn't really the place for detailed scientific papers, that's for peer reviewed publications, but it's a great place to create discussions (which this did very successfully).

http://kissmybighairyspider.blogspot.com/2015/12/98-revision-of-phormingochilus-related.html?m=0

We do note that further work on this material will likely restore Haplopelma and split the species into different groups with the Thailand and Myanmar species returning to the genus Melopoeus. But this is for other workers to decide.

Iow, they admitted more work needed to be done that would likely disagree with some of their work but it wasn't going to be by them.

http://kissmybighairyspider.blogspot.com/2015/12/100-new-years-gift-to-kmbhs-readers.html?m=0

PS: As I saw one reader's comment about the WSC having our paper listed as "Upcoming" I went to take a look. There I saw something very coincidental. It seems Gunter Schmidt, a very old man who prolifically publishes sloppy papers in his friend's self-published magazine, has a new paper on the synonymy of Haplopelma and Melopoeus, something we discuss in our own paper. This is old news, of course, but I would imagine Volker von Wirth is really pulling his hair out now. We've just placed all Haplopelma in Cyriopagopus and note that the Myanmar and Thailand material will likely be restored to Melopoeus by future workers (VVW?). However, there is an English abstract for Schmidt's paper and the title is obvious - he is stating that Haplopelma and Melopoeus are not synonymous. Interesting ...

http://kissmybighairyspider.blogspot.com/2016/01/104-labeler-tape-taxonomy.html?m=0

I recently co-authored a paper with Andrew Smith that changed the names of many Ornithoctoninae. Although our work focused on the arboreal tarantulas of places like Malaysia and Borneo, the revision affected terrestrial genera as well. Your Haplopelma becameCyriopagopus. Admittedly, we noted that future works by experts on these spiders (e.g. German Volker Von Wirth) may resurrect Haplopelma and perhaps Melopoeus.

http://kissmybighairyspider.blogspot.com/2016/03/108-14th-bts-lectures-part-i.html?m=0

There are always dissenters and critics. They are free to publish their own findings. Andrew may be a "splitter" and old-fashioned in methodology, but he certainly has made his mark on Theraphosidae taxonomy. He continues the great tradition of "amateur arachnologists" who have worked on tarantulas. He admittedly is a throwback to the 1900s and the work of Pocock and others, but you can't deny his expertise and contributions. The opposition should be respectful, and I challenge them to do better.

I always see people complaining about this proposed revision but it was made very clear that more work needs to be done by those who specialize in these genera. They were very clear that this was their opinion based on the info they used even if it was using "old school" methodology.

 

[AracKnight]

You act like they don't know each other and never talk lol.

Well, I know Volker von Wirth in person and talked with him a little about this revision and as he told me there was no correspondence relating to this topic. He also stated that he regrets this and would like to get the information about this C. paganus type Smith&Jacobi gathered.

 

[Angel Minkov]

Violaceopes is back to Lampropelma because there was no sufficient criteria to put it in Omothymus genus in the first place

Just like the Cyriopagopus and Haplopelma mess

 

[Arachnomaniac19]

Just like the Cyriopagopus and Haplopelma mess

Just be glad it isn't as bad a Chilobrachys! It makes me wonder if the revision made it less of a mess in the long run...