most annoying name changes

BrettG

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,318
The whole C.crawshayi change....The new name is a mess IMHO.
 

killy

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
249
So what has been the most annoying T name change so far.
{D{D{D I've expounded on this subject a number of times (to the apparent annoyance of many, but ...) -

File this under the "if-it-works-don't-fix-it" category - the name change I just love to hate is the replacement of G aureostriata with G pulchripes ... it's like calling a butterfly a Schmetterlink - I mean, I'm SURE there's a very good scholarly reason for that, but if you love language, and the way it trips off the tongue, and the way it paints mental images, and the way that words can be made to sound like music to the ears, you've got to agree that "aureostriata" beats "pulchripes" all to Hades.
 

Zoltan

Cult Leader
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
1,467
The whole C.crawshayi change....The new name is a mess IMHO.
Why? :?

File this under the "if-it-works-don't-fix-it" category - the name change I just love to hate is the replacement of G aureostriata with G pulchripes ... it's like calling a butterfly a Schmetterlink - I mean, I'm SURE there's a very good scholarly reason for that, but if you love language, and the way it trips off the tongue, and the way it paints mental images, and the way that words can be made to sound like music to the ears, you've got to agree that "aureostriata" beats "pulchripes" all to Hades.
Unfortunately, taxonomy doesn't operate on the love of language and the way words trip off your tongue... And if you would have bothered to read that "very good scholarly reason" you would know that pulchripes is just as a fitting name (not that it matters) as aureostriata. ;P
 

BrettG

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,318
Why? :?


Unfortunately, taxonomy doesn't operate on the love of language and the way words trip off your tongue... And if you would have bothered to read that "very good scholarly reason" you would know that pulchripes is just as a fitting name (not that it matters) as aureostriata. ;P
Because its a MOUTHFULL compared to the last name! No scientific reason,I just fail at Latin and the new name is worse than a tongue twister for me.
 

Zoltan

Cult Leader
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
1,467
Because its a MOUTHFULL compared to the last name! No scientific reason,I just fail at Latin and the new name is worse than a tongue twister for me.
Ah. I'm not a Latin master either (just started learning Latin this semester), but I don't find Pelinobius muticus harder to pronounce than Citharischius crawshayi.
 

BrettG

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,318
Ah. I'm not a Latin master either (just started learning Latin this semester), but I don't find Pelinobius muticus harder to pronounce than Citharischius crawshayi.
Well,for me they were BOTH a pain. As soon as I could spit out fragments of the last name,they went and changed it ;) Oh well. Are there any others that have recently changed?
 

BigJ999

Arachnoknight
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
188
Ive been looking around and it seems there are. I'll be honest i can't pronounce the king baboon's scientific name.
 

killy

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
249
{D{D{D I've expounded on this subject a number of times (to the apparent annoyance of many, but ...) -
Unfortunately, taxonomy doesn't operate on the love of language and the way words trip off your tongue... And if you would have bothered to read that "very good scholarly reason" you would know that pulchripes is just as a fitting name (not that it matters) as aureostriata. ;P
{D{D{D Okay gang, see what I mean? ... {D{D{D


Now don't go getting all defensive on me Zoltan - first of all, I'm just expressing my personal lay-person's opinion, I'm not trying to upset any intellectual apple-carts ... and your taxonomy statement is self-evident, you're just repeating in different words what I said already ... and if you had bothered to read my post carefully you would see that you actually agree with me - in that post I acknowledged that there is probably some above-my-head reason for making this change ... but if, as you say, both names are equally fitting, my point is, why change it? (And your "both are fitting" argument is arguable: "aureostriata" means literally "gold-stripes" and "pulchripes" means "prettiness" - by your reasoning, we could also just as fittingly call it a Grammostola Belle-Of-The-Ball - and to take this a step further, is the Chaco the only "pulchritudinous" tarantula? - you'll get some strong opposition to THAT one!!). Cheez :wall:.... (are you and the PhD that pulled the plug on "aureostriata" relatives or something? I didn't mean to bruise anybody's feelings :) )
 

codykrr

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
3,113
What annoys me more than the name changes is when people refuse to use the new name.

Also, Zoltan...maybe you can shed some light on the whole G. rosea/porteri...

Did it not FULLY change or what. I heard it did. then I heard it was a "jr. synonym"...ect

Whats the deal with that?
 

BigJ999

Arachnoknight
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
188
Well ive been trying use the scientific more often but its a tongue twister lol. I have her labeled with the new name though.
 

Lorum

Arachnosquire
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
111
both names are equally fitting, my point is, why change it?
Because that species was described before, under the name Eurypelma pulchripes (after that, it was transfered to Grammostola). Grammostola aureostriata was a name given to the same species after that first one, and they are synonymous. So, Grammostola pulchripes is the older name (we could say, the original one). If it is older than G. aureostriata, why change it? The first description, the first name, is the valid one. Names of species do not change just because an investigator wants to change them (so we can't say: "why change it?" just because we don't like them).;)
 

Chris_Skeleton

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
1,310
Well IMO, I like G. pulchripes. It's shorter to say and also sounds good, atleast to me. And second, I absolutely hate Pelinobius muticus. It just sounds awful. And when shortened, I keep having to reread because I think of P. murinus when I see it. It just really sounds godawful compared to C. crawshayi.
 

Zoltan

Cult Leader
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
1,467
but if, as you say, both names are equally fitting, my point is, why change it?
Again, if you would have read the article (if you're interested, PM me), you'd know why the "name was changed". In short:

1891. - Simon describes Eurypelma pulchripes.
1892. - Simon's Eurypelma pulchripes becomes the type species of his new genus, Grammostola.
1996. - Pérez-Miles et al. say: G. pulchripes is the junior synonym of G. mollicoma.
2001. - Schmidt & Bullmer describe G. aureostriata.
2009. - [drumroll] Gabriel says: G. pulchripes is actually not synonymous with G. mollicoma (removed from synonymy), but in fact, it is synonymous with G. aureostriata.

Consequence: when two names are deemed synonymous, the older name becomes the senior synonym and the valid name
[G. pulchripes Simon, 1891], the younger name becomes the junior synonym and it's "put out of use" [G. aureostriata Schmidt & Bullmer, 2001].

Mr. Gabriel and I are not related, by the way.

And your "both are fitting" argument is arguable: "aureostriata" means literally "gold-stripes" and "pulchripes" means "prettiness" - by your reasoning, we could also just as fittingly call it a Grammostola Belle-Of-The-Ball - and to take this a step further, is the Chaco the only "pulchritudinous" tarantula?
AFAIK and according to the article, pulchripes means "beautiful legs". I think pulchra means "beautiful" or "pretty" (i.e. certainly a fitting name for G. pulchra or Avicularia pulchra).

Also, Zoltan...maybe you can shed some light on the whole G. rosea/porteri...

Did it not FULLY change or what. I heard it did. then I heard it was a "jr. synonym"...ect

Whats the deal with that?
As for synonymy, that's a load of crap, no such thing has been published. Nothing of taxonomic value was published on G. porteri since 1979 as far as I'm aware. I've read claims that a "scientific reclassification" (or whatever) was done and that this is G. rosea and that is G. porteri, but the article this was published in either doesn't exist or they are hiding it exceptionally well.
 

Scorpendra

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
1,518
I'm starting to get used to P. muticus and G. pulchripes. The only change that ever altered my collection so far was Cyriopagopus sp. "blue" regaining the name Lampropelma violaceopes and that wasn't too hard for me either.
 
Last edited:
Top