Taxonomy question

I have been thinking about this all day and I don't know the answer. People use Latin names to distinguish between species because it's supposed to be more universal, but I've noticed they change alot. I have two T's right now that apparently are going through a name change from C. paganus to H. longipedum. I checked on a gray rat snake the other day and it had changed from Elaphe to Pantheropus (I think). I guess the names change as more information is learned about the particular species but it's somewhat confusing to me. Also how long does it take for the name change to take effect? Is there a grace period? What do you call it in the meantime? These are just things that probably don't matter to anyone else but me though I am curious to know. Anyone shed some light on this for me?

The namechanges are more or less only suggestions so to speak, it usually takes a while before they get accepted. In some cases the acceptance never comes when the work has been poorly done in one way or another. I personally dont jump on the namechanging wagon straight away, esp. if theres a huge change for example the genus Trimeresurus that was cut up in a number of new genus.

/Lelle

I have two T's right now that apparently are going through a name change from C. paganus to H. longipedum.

Click to expand...

That can't happen until the missing type specimen of Cyriopagopus paganus is located. Right now it's not certain what that species actually is. Could it be synonomous with Haplopelma sp. "longipedum?" Perhaps, but nobody knows that, and it won't be figured out until the original specimen turns up.

LPacker79 said:

That can't happen until the missing type specimen of Cyriopagopus paganus is located. Right now it's not certain what that species actually is. Could it be synonomous with Haplopelma sp. "longipedum?" Perhaps, but nobody knows that, and it won't be figured out until the original specimen turns up.

Click to expand...

The fact is, the original type specimen may never turn up. Surely it gets to a point where changes can be made to the species description without the original type specimen, since the chances are it has been destroyed or lost for ever.

Crotalus said:

The namechanges are more or less only suggestions so to speak, it usually takes a while before they get accepted. In some cases the acceptance never comes when the work has been poorly done in one way or another. I personally dont jump on the namechanging wagon straight away, esp. if theres a huge change for example the genus Trimeresurus that was cut up in a number of new genus.

/Lelle

Click to expand...

Lelle,

the name changes are more than just suggestions. Once it has been accepted and published in a peer reviewed paper, the name change is official. Whether it is taken up quickly by other members of the scientific community or by members of the hobby is another matter.

danread said:

The fact is, the original type specimen may never turn up. Surely it gets to a point where changes can be made to the species description without the original type specimen, since the chances are it has been destroyed or lost for ever.

Click to expand...

Now you've got me curious. Do you think that may happen in the future? Who makes the decision that it's been long enough? Not questioning the validity of your thoughts at all, just thirsting for knowledge here .

Where's Volker and Martin right about now?

LPacker79 said:

Now you've got me curious. Do you think that may happen in the future? Who makes the decision that it's been long enough? Not questioning the validity of your thoughts at all, just thirsting for knowledge here .

Where's Volker and Martin right about now?

Click to expand...

To be honest, i really don't know, but it's common sense to say that changes have to be able to occur without the type specimen at some point. Otherwise taxonomy would be continually be held in limbo by lost type specimens. Lots of type specimens in Europe were lost during the second world war, and of course, they do deteriorate naturally, so that it becomes impossible to use it as a taxonomic tool after a certian period of time. But as you said, i think Martin or Volker would be able to answer this question better than me!

danread said:

Lelle,

the name changes are more than just suggestions. Once it has been accepted and published in a peer reviewed paper, the name change is official. Whether it is taken up quickly by other members of the scientific community or by members of the hobby is another matter.

Click to expand...

They are the authors personal view. Not facts written in stone. Peer review are only done tro ensure the credability and quality of what is published, but still - the content of the article is still the authors personal view.

/Lelle

If the Type of Cyriopagopus paganus is located (Martin as indicated there’s a chance it may have been) and it turns out to be a Haplopelma.sp im still not sure that Haplopelma would be made a junior synonym as Haplopelma is long established and I doubt that Simon’s paper for C.paganus would have given working keys for the genus as a whole.

I believe this is what happened with Aphonopelma see this quote from the WSC.

“ Rhechostica Simon, 1892 = Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Raven, 1985a: 149, but priority reversed by ICZN Opinion 1637).”

It seems Simon’s work may have been in some way flawed and Pocock’s work was given priority, despite the fact being that Aphonopelma was younger then Rhechostica (priority reversed), I may be wrong about this but changing Haplopelma to Cyriopagopus would also mean finding a new genus name for species in Cyriopagopus too.

Also, you have to remember that with the advent of genetic typing (maybe not with t's, but with vertebrates at least), classifications that used to be based solely on physical characteristics can be changed to reflect a more accurate evolutionary "tree."

Now I'm really confused! What do I call these things that are taxonomically in limbo right now? I assume that if I use one of those two names everyone will know what I'm talking about even if there is some question as to the validity of the names. In other cases where this has occured, how long did it take to resolve the issue and what steps were taken to determine once and for all that a certain name was the correct one?

Python said:

Now I'm really confused! What do I call these things that are taxonomically in limbo right now? I assume that if I use one of those two names everyone will know what I'm talking about even if there is some question as to the validity of the names.

Click to expand...

I don't use Cyriopagopus paganus at all, and if I did I'm sure Leon, Martin, or Volker would beat me with a wet noodle. Haplopelma sp. "longipedum" is correct, as it is still an undescribed species. Calling it Haplopelma longipedum is not, as that would indicate that it had been described. The former term I listed is simply a working name for now until it's sorted out. There's also Haplopelma sp. "Vietnam", which is often confused with "longipedum."

Gotta love taxonomy!

LPacker79 said:

There's also Haplopelma sp. "Vietnam", which is often confused with "longipedum."

Click to expand...

Dr Schmidt has named Haplopelma.sp "Vietnam" as H.vonwirthi to the best of my knowledge.

"Schmidt G. 2005 Haplopelma vonwirthi sp. n., eine neue Art der Haplopelma minax-Gruppe aus Südostasien (Araneae : Theraphosidae : Ornithoctoninae). Tarantulas of the World. Ausgabe 103, März 2005 :4-12."

Many will still call it "Vietnam" for long to come im sure.

FryLock said:

It seems Simon’s work may have been in some way flawed and Pocock’s work was given priority, despite the fact being that Aphonopelma was younger then Rhechostica (priority reversed)

Click to expand...

Simon's work was not really considered flawed by Raven nor Pocock. At the time of Pocock's new genus Aphonopelma (type species being Eurypelma seemanii), Rhechostica (type species of R. texensis) was still considered valid. Dr. Robert Raven then came along in 1985 and said in so many words "Those two types are the same." and gave "Rhechostica" senior synomy. At this point the ICZN was called to action to rule on this name precendence by Herbert Levi and Otto Kraus because Aphonopelma was more familar in the nomenclature. The ICZN didn't agree that the two genera should be considered the same anyway so they left it open in their ruling that Aphonopelma should be used when considering that the two genera are the same. However, today everyone agrees that Rhechostica = Aphonopelma so that open ended statement will apply today only if some odd ball comes along and brings back Rhechostica. And if someone tries it, I'm quiting and going home.

I can't comment on what would happen if the genus type of Cyriopagopus (C. paganus) was found. I don't know anything about either genus. But I can say that it isn't the same situation as the Aphonopelma/ Rhechostica fiasco was.

- Lonnie

Hi "FryLock",

FryLock said:

Dr Schmidt has named Haplopelma.sp "Vietnam" as H.vonwirthi to the best of my knowledge.

"Schmidt G. 2005 Haplopelma vonwirthi sp. n., eine neue Art der Haplopelma minax-Gruppe aus Südostasien (Araneae : Theraphosidae : Ornithoctoninae). Tarantulas of the World. Ausgabe 103, März 2005 :4-12."

Many will still call it "Vietnam" for long to come im sure.

Click to expand...

but this "description" of Schmidt is invalid according to the ICZN, as no type depository was included in the description. => "Haplopelma vonwirthi" SCHMIDT 2005 is a nomen nudum => this name is not available according to the ICZN.
See also this paper:

• VON WIRTH, V. & B. F. STRIFFLER (2005): Neue Erkenntnisse zur Vogelspinnen – Unterfamilie Ornithoctoninae, mit Beschreibung von Ornithoctonus aureotibialis sp. n. und Haplopelma longipes sp. n. (Araneae, Theraphosidae). Arthropoda 13(2): 2-27.

all the best,
Martin

Hi,

as Martin mentioned, there is a publication made by me and Boris Striffler (DOWNLOAD), in which we've declared "Haplopelma vonwirthi" and "Haplopelma chrysothrix", both described by this german grandpa Schmidt;P , as NOT available in the sense of the ICZN, because Schmidt didn't mentioned in his paper where the Typematerial of his "new" Species is deposited. Because of this, it is not possible to review his findings by other scientists, because nobody knows where the basic Material of this Species is deposited. Such a nonscientific behavior made by Schmidt prevents scientific work! That is the reason why there is a paragraph within the "International code of zoological nomenclature" (§ 16.4.2) which clearly says, that the location, where the Typematerial of a new Taxon is deposited, HAS TO BE mentioned in the ORIGINALPAPER! If this is not the case, the name and the description of a new Taxon (=Species, Genus ...) is NOT AVAILABLE!
Concerning the question why are there so much name-changings within the last time and whether name-changes are "suggestions":
the most theraphosid Spiders were described before more than 100 Years ago. The scientists at that time described the Species whith characters and a theoretical backround, which was up to date at that time. Today, we have a totally grown knowledge about evolution and development of characters and a stable scientific Theory behind that, namely the phylogenetic systematic based on Willi Hennig. With the todays computer technologies, we are able to manage much more characters within a computer analysis than the scientists could do before 100 Years ago. Furthermore there is a generation of Theraphosid interested Biologists grown, which is working very intense now. They are producing a lot of Papers about new findings of homologous characters and new combinations of species using the advanced methods within todays phylogenitc Systematic (Bertani, Perez-Miles, Gallon, Guadanuchi, von Wirth & Striffler, Zhu, Longhorn and so on). That is the reason why there are so many changings in Theraphosid names take place at the moment, and because of the modern technics they use, I absolutely disagree in stating the new Species combinations/-names as "suggestions". "Suggestions" concerning new Species, is only the case in the lot of questionably "new" Species which were described by an old german hobby taxonomist!:razz: He is certainly working like the taxonomists before 200 Years ago!

Cheers, Volker

Martin H. said:

Hi "FryLock",

but this "description" of Schmidt is invalid according to the ICZN, as no type depository was included in the description. => "Haplopelma vonwirthi" SCHMIDT 2005 is a nomen nudum => this name is not available according to the ICZN.
See also this paper:

• VON WIRTH, V. & B. F. STRIFFLER (2005): Neue Erkenntnisse zur Vogelspinnen – Unterfamilie Ornithoctoninae, mit Beschreibung von Ornithoctonus aureotibialis sp. n. und Haplopelma longipes sp. n. (Araneae, Theraphosidae). Arthropoda 13(2): 2-27.

all the best,
Martin

Click to expand...

True Martin, but Frylock made that post in May - before Volker & Boris' description and the findings within it had been published

Hi Leon,

Lopez said:

True Martin, but Frylock made that post in May - before Volker & Boris' description and the findings within it had been published

Click to expand...

the name "Haplopelma vonwirthi" never has been valid because no valid description has been published => it does not need another paper stating that it is invalid!

Cheers,
Martin

Lopez said:

True Martin, but Frylock made that post in May - before Volker & Boris' description and the findings within it had been published

Click to expand...

Martin H. said:

the name "Haplopelma vonwirthi" never has been valid because no valid description has been published => it does not need another paper stating that it is invalid!

Click to expand...

LOL Leon.

I was kind of waiting for some one to point out and for Martin or another to then point out it was never valid in the first place (which I why I never said anything when I saw his post) .

But of course when work’s are put into publication all we can really do is “Parrot” that information if we think it’s of use/interest to others (or use it in reference if we speak of its focus), most of us are not in a position to question any taxonomic publications unless we have access to the species involved and in quite a few cases where papers are poorly written (or just plain wrong) a fair range of congeners (at least of the same genus) as well to in order to make a personal opinion of the work, and most people simply don’t have that sort of resource .

In this case i think there may have been one or two "Warning light's", if the paper never stated a deposit location were the material could have been examined that would have been a big one (not that most ppl quoting it would have read the work me included ), although that alone would not proof that the information in the paper was false or inaccurate only that protocol had been flouted, but then there may have possibly been other things too “warn” too .

LPacker79 said:

Now you've got me curious. Do you think that may happen in the future? Who makes the decision that it's been long enough? Not questioning the validity of your thoughts at all, just thirsting for knowledge here

Click to expand...

Hi,
This depends purely on the wieght then of the original description. If the type/s is/are lost, the original description too vague (which is common), then the species should be considered incertae sedis. Sometimes, the original description contains enough information to identify the spider described, then a neotype/s can be designtated. If paratypes exist, then it is simply a matter of declaring one of those as a lectotype for the lost holotype.

Due to the war, many "species" are now considered incertae sedis

Cheers,
Steve