I'm sure you're more qualified? And no, just because something was published, doesn't mean it was peer-reviewed.
Nope. But, on the other hand, the only way the nomen dubia works is if she intends to declare them junior synonyms. Of what? One of her nominate species? That's extremely bad form.
Well, you're right. But publishing without peer review tends to result in blacklisting from scientific journals.
I just went as far back into your posting history as I could, but I found no breakdown. You obviously know something I don't, so perhaps you could humor me this once?Chase people haven't seen this? I've linked this and the breakdown many times on this forum as well as others. Search function much?
+1. There's been a number of recently described species, published in non-scientific magazines, with no peer review. Some are based on molts and without locality data. All of those are not going to hold up to scrutiny. People have suspected for years that the ever-growing number of Avic species have included many regional variations of Avic avicularia, some being 'described' based on questionable features like colors, markings, or size. I am so glad someone is finally getting this under control.
I knew that happened, which sort of boggles my mind. And the nomen dubia list supports my theory that most of the Avicularia species described before 1909 were so much fluff.
Absolutely. I don't take issue with her nomen dubia list as a whole. I take issue with her declaring A. geroldi and A. metallica as nomen dubia. And I'm willing to eat crow if, when her paper comes out, Fukushima has a good explanation for declaring them nomen dubia. As in I will bump this thread and admit my error.
It's been thought for years that both of those are probably regional forms of Avic avic. I'm not at all surprised by those two species being subordinated, and no doubt there's more. Part of the problem with that genus, and T's in general, is that old descriptions frequently weren't detailed enough or didn't use the proper characteristics that are accepted today (urticating hairs, stridulating organs, spermatheca, emboli, etc). There's been a tendency towards 'splitters' who divide every minor difference into a new species, which is proving to have been overkill. 'Lumpers' are more realistic and accept a certain amount of variation in a species as normal. As with Aphonopelma, Avics have been over-described.
Use the search function wasn't a hint?
This is also incorrect. Nomen dubium means it is unknown/not enough information/lost type material etc.
Because you have access to the holotypes and have compared them to?
To step outside of the world of Ts, something similar happened in the Atheris genus (African Bush Vipers). Atheris chlorechis was described as a separate species from Atheris squamigera. A scientist went back and did a study of the two holotypes and, based upon limited geographic overlap, declared A. chlorechis a junior synonym of A. squamigera. The problem with that was that A. chlorechis is never any color other than grass green with a yellow underbelly, whereas A. squamigera is incredibly variable in its coloration specimen-to-specimen and in a single specimen's life cycle. To settle the debate a third scientist went to Africa, collected specimens of both species and did an in-depth analysis of every factor, including mitochondrial, and published a paper re-elevating A. chlorechis to a species.
I'll do a more in-depth search, then. I assumed searching user post history amounted to the same thing as using the search function. My bad.Use the search function wasn't a hint?
In any case, it's still considering the species invalid. Then again, it's just her thesis proposal, so I guess it's subject to change.
Description of species, or the erasure thereof, based upon the examination of holotypes is the scientific equivalent of dipping your toe in the water. Although, yes, I would very much like to some day see the holotypes.
I'm arguing against one specific point in her thesis proposal based upon my own observation of pictures of those two species in all three major life stages and comparing them to other known valid species in the genus Avicularia. The differences are sufficiently obvious that I am confident enough in arguing against that point in a thesis proposal. For all I know in the three years since she published that proposal she has collected sufficient evidence to revise that opinion.This seems to be a lot of argumentative opinions against a person who has been working on Aviculariinae for the last few years(with Bertani) coming from someone who just claimed they don't even own a tarantula yet. Is your name Rob by chance?
That's a given in any husbandry culture where laymen can publish species descriptions in journals without peer review and be perfectly accepted.
You are comparing what you've seen in the pet trade labelled as such. Pet trade material has nothing to do with her revision. Photo IDing theraphosids, especially Avicularia, should not be done. With pet-trade material it is even worse. The more people realize this the better the hobby will be off.
I'm sorta conflicted about this. I've seen a lot of pictures that are completely mislabeled and obviously so. You know the systematics better than I do, but I've not seen a lot of valid Avicularia sp. that are terribly similar. Closest I can come up with is A. purpurea and A. geroldi, but even then there are obvious differences. I'm not terribly worried about it, because I don't even plan to order online until the whole Avicularia mess is sorted out.
I've always been interested by animals, which is part of it. I also find taxonomy fascinating. As a bonus, I've picked up a lot of Latin.I just find your interest or in depth to be a little odd for someone who doesn't keep yet. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. If people would research this much before that impulse buy, the forum would be less riddled with the same questions and would have more fun debates on the mess of theraposid taxonomy and systematics.