I've expounded on this subject a number of times (to the apparent annoyance of many, but ...) -So what has been the most annoying T name change so far.
Why? :?The whole C.crawshayi change....The new name is a mess IMHO.
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. ;PFile 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.
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.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
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.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.
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?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.
I've expounded on this subject a number of times (to the apparent annoyance of many, but ...) -
Okay gang, see what I mean? ...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
Hey, Big J, you started this - what's your pet name-change peeve?So what has been the most annoying T name change so far.
+200 and thatAh. 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.
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).both names are equally fitting, my point is, why change it?
+1000 lol:wall::wall:+200 and that
Again, if you would have read the article (if you're interested, PM me), you'd know why the "name was changed". In short:but if, as you say, both names are equally fitting, my point is, why change it?
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).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?
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.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?