The Basics of Scientific Names and Gender Declination

TheDarkFinder

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
875
Great post, but have to ask,

SO? I mean what are you shooting for here.


Do you believe that we all should start writing names like where writing for a journal.

I could say Red rump, which would bring up a lot possible tarantula from many genus. It is really not possible for anyone to nail this species with out more help.

But if I go G. actaeon or Grammostola actaeon or Grammostola actaeon or G. actaeon or G. actaeon or Grammostola actaeon

I think most people will understand what I mean.

I just missed what you are shooting for? Have you read a journal article that is missing this?

Or just want to start to randomly inflict rules.
 

Philth

N.Y.H.C.
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
2,714
I just asked a question , cuase I wanted to learn something.;)

Later, Tom
 

Greyhalo

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
258
I am thankful for this type of information since I have OCD about these types of things. If I'm going to say or type a scientific name then it should be correct.

The reason he posted it is because a person had a question about which scientific name was correct for Iridopelma hirsutum. The point he was trying to make was that by knowing about gender declination you would be able to figure out which scientific name was correct. Atleast thats what I think was his point of the post. I dont really understand why you are being rude questioning his reason for his post. The point of the forums is for people to be able to come here and find information and he was providing information.

Once again, thank you for the information.
 

Crotalus

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
2,434
About subspecies in spiders, Stromatopelma calceatum griseipes is one example and Avicularia avicularia variegata another. Both still valid for all I know.
 

M.F.Bagaturov

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
1,005
Hello All!

It is also worth mention that Avicularia hirsuta sensu Ausserer (firstly Ischnocolus h., in 1875) was NEVER synonymized and was and still a valid taxon described firstly from Cuba.
The "Avicularia hirsuta" Michael told about was formerly A. hirsuta sensu Pocock, which was described later, in 1901 from the specimens found in Brazil.
I knew these detailes means nothing for some people, but You should never be surprised found Avicularia hirsuta as valid taxon as oppisite the Jacobi post.
Good luck!
 

Michael Jacobi

RETIRED/RARELY USE AB
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
937
About subspecies in spiders, Stromatopelma calceatum griseipes is one example and Avicularia avicularia variegata another. Both still valid for all I know.
The fact that they are still "valid" is because a paper hasn't been published yet to declare them nomen nudum. That doesn't make them accurate. You have named the only two examples of subspecies currently still "on the books" for theraphosid spiders, but they are useless. In fact, even Avicularia avicularia cannot be correctly identified so how can there be a valid subspecies? For those interested in exactly why there are no subspecies in spiders I suggest the following reference:

KRAUS, O. 2000.
Why no subspecies in spiders?
European Arachnology 2000: 303-314.
(Proceedings of the 19th European Colloquium of Arachnology, Århus 17-22 July 2000)

It can be downloaded here.

Best regards, Michael
 

Crotalus

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
2,434
The fact that they are still "valid" is because a paper hasn't been published yet to declare them nomen nudum. That doesn't make them accurate. You have named the only two examples of subspecies currently still "on the books" for theraphosid spiders, but they are useless. In fact, even Avicularia avicularia cannot be correctly identified so how can there be a valid subspecies? For those interested in exactly why there are no subspecies in spiders I suggest the following reference:

KRAUS, O. 2000.
Why no subspecies in spiders?
European Arachnology 2000: 303-314.
(Proceedings of the 19th European Colloquium of Arachnology, Århus 17-22 July 2000)

It can be downloaded here.

Best regards, Michael

Until someone put a valid paper out then Id say the subspecies are not valid - until that happens there are spiders with subspecies. Besides, theres not always a paper from a hobbyist makes much of a difference either.
Not sure what the difficulties of identifying Avicularia avicularia would have much to do with wheather there should be a subspecies or not.
I just feel you getting ahead of yourself here.
 

Michael Jacobi

RETIRED/RARELY USE AB
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
937
Until someone put a valid paper out then Id say the subspecies are not valid - until that happens there are spiders with subspecies.
I realize English is your second language, but that is a contradictory sentence. I assume you mean that you believe the subspecies are valid and that there are other valid examples in aranaeomorphs. Care to share with us what other subspecies exist in other spider families?

Not sure what the difficulties of identifying Avicularia avicularia would have much to do with wheather there should be a subspecies or not.
I just feel you getting ahead of yourself here.
1. Most importantly, if you can't define X, you can't define a subset of X.
2. If, as most of us believe, many of the species of Avicularia in the hobby are not valid species, but geographical races of a single species, how does one other geographical race alone deserve subspecific status.
3. Only the dubious tandem of Schmidt and Peters has used the subspecies Avicularia avicularia variegata since Pocock's original 1897 description. It has not been recognized by any other works on the genus or species.

Finally, you seem to discount Kraus' work. Is there a reason for this?

By the way, I have reviewed the other uses of subspecies in the family Theraphosidae. Including the nominate race, there are three subspecies of Phormictopus cancerides that are still listed by Platnick. But Platnick purposely does not act as judge or jury, and lists all published descriptions until another eliminates them. In our second example, Stromatopelma calceatum griseipes, it is again an artifact from Pocock, 1897. The Hancock's inadvertently elevated it to specific status in their 1989 book (unjustified emendation), which was then corrected (passively, by ignoring it and returning to Pocock's original) by three subsequent authors. I expect that when Richard Gallon's book on the African tarantulas is published he will either declare it a valid species or, much more likely, ignore it as being synonymous with Stromatopelma calceatum.

Finally, your comment on hobbyists and their "making a difference" is ludicrous. Some of the most important workers on theraphosid spiders have all been amateurs. This was the case over a hundred years ago and is often still the case today.

Kind regards, Michael
 
Last edited:

Talkenlate04

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
8,662
So would a naturally occurring hybrid be a subspecies then? And maybe color morphs? I am just curious what would be designated a "sub species".
 

syndicate

Arachnoemperor
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,508
not to stroll to off topic here but would diffferent color varients of a species be considered a sub-species?what exactly qualifies something to be a sub-species?
 

Talkenlate04

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
8,662
Well it's a complicated question I think, and I agree there should be some sort of sub species assignment, but there might end up being more sub species then species when it's all said and done, depending on how it's done.
 

Michael Jacobi

RETIRED/RARELY USE AB
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
937
Well, it is difficult to define the term "subspecies" because there is more than one "species concept" and, therefore, the definition would be determined by which "camp" you belong to with regard to species definition.

To expound on the definition of species is far beyond what I want to spend the time on here. To oversimplify... let me stress that again, to oversimplify, one common definition of species is two populations that may be capable of interbreeding, but are geographically separated and do not. Of course, we have seen in some snakes and other reptiles, for example, that even some genera are capable of interbreeding (e.g., the artificially produced (captive-bred) ratsnake (Elaphe)/kingsnake (Lampropeltis) and ratsnake (Elaphe)/gophersnake (Pituophis) hybrids), so there is a grey area in all of this. Subspecies are often considered to be synonymous with geographical races. For example, the milksnake species Lampropeltis triangulum has the largest range of any snake and has something like 25 recognized subspecies in its range from northern North America down to the Andes Mountains. Some of these subspecies may be sympatric (occur in the same area; that is, have overlapping distribution) and naturally intergrade.

And, to Eric's point, I was only arguing that I don't believe there are any currently valid subspecies of theraphosid spiders. The three examples are, to my way of thinking, outdated. I agree with him that there is good evidence that using the subspecific concept would be beneficial to spider taxonomy, and very much so with tarantula spiders. For example, I can very much imagine someone taking on the task of revising the genus Avicularia reducing many of the current species to subspecies of one super-species. For example, I do not personally believe our pet trade "A. braunshauseni" is a distinct species, but rather a geographical race, and can therefore envision something along the lines of "Avicularia avicularia braunshauseni". However, as I have hinted at, without a type specimen for Avicularia avicularia it is going to be a very daunting task to sort this mess of a genus out.

To answer Chris' question, variation in color alone would not be grounds for splitting into subspecies, but if a two populations of a species were split by, say, habitat destruction and the two resulting populations differed in color or pattern, then the argument could be made that they are indeed subspecies. (Of course, it is possible that over a length of time these races would evolve adaptations to their differences in habitat and become distinct enough to be true species!)

To return to my milksnake example, these snakes could be send to be color morphs as they differ primarily in color/pattern such as "triad" count (they also differ in length, etc.). But if we were to discuss the three isolated populations of Poecilotheria subfusca, all of which I consider montane although there is a gradation from the lowest elevation population to the highest elevation population, and say that the lower altitude specimens are lighter in color than the high altitude specimens, this doesn't make them subspecies.

So, all of this is very confusing, even to those of us who studied biology for years. It certainly is far beyond the scope of this forum. I would suggest anyone with a strong interest to type "species concept" into Google and set aside a bunch of hours to become immersed in a topic that is hotly debated by zoologists.

All the best, Michael
 
Last edited:

Talkenlate04

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
8,662
I don't believe there are any currently valid subspecies of theraphosid spiders
So say with Brachypelma baumgarteni, in theory maybe a natural hybrid of B. boehmi and B. Smithi, would you say the offspring is not a subspecies because their habitats overlap? If so what would they be designated as then? Just a color morph within the brachypelma genus? Heck I am lost. This post makes no sense I am sure. I don't know what my point was. I guess I was thinking out loud.:eek:

I'll agree this is confusing as heck. But someone might take it on one day. More like a team of people and a large debate.
 
Last edited:

ShadowBlade

Planeswalker
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
2,596
Color-forms would definately not justify as a sub-species.

And the point is not that sub-species don't exist.. its that we don't have sufficient taxonomical knowledge and evidence to scientifically determine them.

Defining species alone is difficult enough, to really define sub-species, you'd have to address the fact of animals' ever changing in the speciation continuum.

-Sean
 
Top