Out dated names.

Arachnomaniac19

Arachnolord
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
654
Is it common for sellers to use out dated names? I've seen Grammostola spatulata, G. cala, Nhandu vulpinus, Vitalius cristatus, and plenty of other names used. If it is common, why is that?
 
Last edited:

nicodimus22

Arachnomancer
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
709
It's a combination of two things.

1) The breeders don't want to confuse customers with a name change and lose sales as a result.
2) The people who are just in it for the money and don't follow the hobby online at all. In short, ignorance of the changes.
 
Last edited:

Arachnomaniac19

Arachnolord
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
654
Some sellers don't follow the hobby as closely as they should
Well, if I remember correctly, I emailed someone selling G. cala about the name thing once, and she/he said that it's because said person thinks that one is more red or orange than the other (G. rosea). I'm thinking making money is a large motive as well, although who knows the real reason?
 

Grimmdreadly

Arachnopeon
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
29
Well, if I remember correctly, I emailed someone selling G. cala about the name thing once, and she/he said that it's because said person thinks that one is more red or orange than the other (G. rosea). I'm thinking making money is a large motive as well, although who knows the real reason?
You're darn tootin making money is one of the main reasons. Making as much money with as little effort is the name of the game for a lot of sellers. They put in no effort to know the ins and outs. Just enough effort to make the sale.

Also, how would someone try to justify not agreeing to a peer accepted name change? It's peer verified for Christina's sake...
 

Arachnomaniac19

Arachnolord
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
654
Also, how would someone try to justify not agreeing to a peer accepted name change? It's peer verified for Christina's sake...
I do agree with the reasoning people have behind this. Just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean that it is correct. I'm certain that many peer reviewed articles aren't entirely accurate. Just take the Haplopelma revision debate, and the whole argument with morphological characteristics vs. genetics when determining phylogeny and describing species. I do think that the new name should be used, but I think we should be keeping the old name somewhere near it. Say underneath it in a coloured (YES THE "U" IS CORRECT) font and a smaller size.
 

Grimmdreadly

Arachnopeon
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
29
I absolutely love that quote. May I steal that for my own use sometimes or is it copyrighted ;)?
Use it away. I'm hoping it sticks into the collective lexicon one day

I do agree with the reasoning people have behind this. Just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean that it is correct. I'm certain that many peer reviewed articles aren't entirely accurate. Just take the Haplopelma revision debate, and the whole argument with morphological characteristics vs. genetics when determining phylogeny and describing species. I do think that the new name should be used, but I think we should be keeping the old name somewhere near it. Say underneath it in a coloured (YES THE "U" IS CORRECT) font and a smaller size.
The Lampropelma/Omylthymus (sp?) debate comes to mind as well as the recent Smithi/Hamorri revision. But I agree. One should keep it close by. I'm just saying that some don't put in the effort to do that.

Science is always evolving. However that means we have to adapt as well

I do agree with the reasoning people have behind this. Just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean that it is correct. I'm certain that many peer reviewed articles aren't entirely accurate. Just take the Haplopelma revision debate, and the whole argument with morphological characteristics vs. genetics when determining phylogeny and describing species. I do think that the new name should be used, but I think we should be keeping the old name somewhere near it. Say underneath it in a coloured (YES THE "U" IS CORRECT) font and a smaller size.
Also I was born and raised for a good portion of my life in Toronto. The "U" is the proper way to spell colour
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AphonopelmaTX

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,366
Well, if I remember correctly, I emailed someone selling G. cala about the name thing once, and she/he said that it's because said person thinks that one is more red or orange than the other (G. rosea). I'm thinking making money is a large motive as well, although who knows the real reason?
If you want to get down to it, the synonymy of G. cala and G. rosea was weak. It was done by Gunter Schmidt in 1998 and the only justification was, to paraphrase, that he and other authors couldn't detect any differences between the two species. There was no illustration of either species, no cladistic analysis, etc. Since that paper is in German, which I have to rely on Google Translate for, it would seem type specimens were not examined either. In my opinion, the jury is still out on whether the two species are actually synonymous. The original descriptions can't be used to reliably identify the two.

One has to appreciate that the majority of taxonomic work on tarantulas was carried out by amateurs in non-peer reviewed journals. It is no surprise then that importers, wholesellers, and retailers just kind of pick and choose which scientific name to use for their stock. There is nothing stopping a buyer from slapping a different label on it though once received. When buying tarantulas, one really can't rely on the identifications from their sellers. The process of identifying most tarantulas is very difficult and time consuming which a seller isn't going to take the time for or learn. It is best for the buyer to have these skills and to get an idea of what is really being sold on the pet trade.

One example that keeps coming to mind on topics like this is the species Euathlus sp. "red." Any seller or buyer that took the time to review those peer reviewed papers and examine their own stock would see that it is really an undescribed Homoeomma species. Some how though when people start complaining about how sellers can't keep the scientific names and/ or the identifications of their stock correct, the hobby in general as far as I can tell keeps referring to this one spider by the wrong genus!
 

CEC

Arachnoangel
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
852
If you want to get down to it, the synonymy of G. cala and G. rosea was weak. It was done by Gunter Schmidt in 1998 and the only justification was, to paraphrase, that he and other authors couldn't detect any differences between the two species. There was no illustration of either species, no cladistic analysis, etc. Since that paper is in German, which I have to rely on Google Translate for, it would seem type specimens were not examined either. In my opinion, the jury is still out on whether the two species are actually synonymous. The original descriptions can't be used to reliably identify the two.

One has to appreciate that the majority of taxonomic work on tarantulas was carried out by amateurs in non-peer reviewed journals. It is no surprise then that importers, wholesellers, and retailers just kind of pick and choose which scientific name to use for their stock. There is nothing stopping a buyer from slapping a different label on it though once received. When buying tarantulas, one really can't rely on the identifications from their sellers. The process of identifying most tarantulas is very difficult and time consuming which a seller isn't going to take the time for or learn. It is best for the buyer to have these skills and to get an idea of what is really being sold on the pet trade.

One example that keeps coming to mind on topics like this is the species Euathlus sp. "red." Any seller or buyer that took the time to review those peer reviewed papers and examine their own stock would see that it is really an undescribed Homoeomma species. Some how though when people start complaining about how sellers can't keep the scientific names and/ or the identifications of their stock correct, the hobby in general as far as I can tell keeps referring to this one spider by the wrong genus!
Same goes for Phrixotrichus scrofa. If people thoroughly read the latest revision, they'd know that the former Paraphysa scrofa isn't Phrixotrichus scrofa. It was obviously mislabeled and more than likely an Euathlus species.
I believe this happens because it's less confusing to most hobbyists when using the incorrect hobby name until a correct species label is determined.
 
Top