# Why we use scientific names.



## Hedgewitch (Feb 12, 2008)

*Why we use scientific names.
Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the Linnaean system.
*
This comes up a fair bit so I thought I'd write up a condensed article. Extra points if you know the reference in the title.

*What are scientific names?
*
Scientific names are part of a system of classification used for all living things. Life is divided into groups by decent, with groups containing more and more related organisms as you travel down the ladder. It's best explained with the help of a simple example. Let's use humans:

Kingdom: Animalia [We are animals]
Phylum: Chordata [We are chordates, animals with backbones or a related structure called a notochord]
Class: Mammalia [We are mammals, a group of animals that suckle their young with milk]
Order: Primates [We are primates, a group including lemurs, monkeys, great apes and humans]
Family: Hominidae [This group narrows it down to just the great apes, inc. us]
Genus: _****_ [This group now only includes species considered to be humans, leaving out all other apes... and yes, you can laugh at the word ****]
Species: _**** sapiens_ [This is us, and only us]

What we're interested in here though is the last bit, _**** sapiens. _The first bit is the genus (the generic), a group of closely related species... all others in the genus _**** _are now extinct. Others though included _**** neanderthalensis_, _**** erectus _and _**** floresiensis_. The word _**** _here just means "man".

The second bit, the bit that differed between the species mentioned was the species part (the specific), this can only be used once within a genus. In a fit of astounding modesty the word _sapiens_ translates to "wise". So in full _**** sapiens _means wise man. Not all scientific names translate this nicely or in such a complementary manner.

So this is the binomial (two named) naming system, and it is used to uniquely describe every plant, animal, bacteria, fungus and all other forms of life that have been described to science. 

*How to write it?*

The standard convention is this: _Genus species_. The genus should always be capitalised, the species should not. On a computer it is written in _italics_, however when hand-written it's simply underlined.

To save time and effort we can abbreviate, _G. species_. However technically you should only use that after you've used the full name once... most people don't bother though.

_Genus spp. _refers to multiple species in a genus, _Genus sp. _refers to a single but unidentified species in a genus. Often species that are not properly identified or described are referred to as _Genus sp. _'name', where name is commonly the location they are collected from or a characteristic.

*Why should we use it?*

The scientific name for an organism is the same the world over, and only that species can have that name. _Acanthoscurria geniculata_ is only ever an _A. geniculata_, however it's common name is the Giant Brazilian White Knee in English... But there are a number of white knee'd giant tarantulas from Brazil. It's German name is even less helpful: Weißknievogelspinne, the White-knee-bird-spider (bird-spider being the German word for tarantulas).

Similarly the Germans may talk about the red-footed tarantulas, which means nothing to the English, who call them pink-toes. But both can easily talk about _Avicularia spp._ with no problem. Also the feet are neither pink nor red, being more akin to an orange colour if you ask me.

Back to the plurality of common names, many common names are ambiguous or refer to more than one tarantula. Especially when shortened, e.g. red-rump can refer to spiders several _Genera_. Common names can also be easily misleading, _Psalmopoeus cambridgei _is often called the "Trinidad chevron tarantula", however chevrons are rather a common patterning in tarantulas. It would be easy for the unwary to get confused with _Holothele incei_, another spider from Trinidad with a chevron patterned abdomen (chevron patterned abdomens being almost as common as 8 legs in tarantulas).

If a spider is new to the hobby and there isn't much information available, often (though far from always) basic care can be deduced from genus name. It also means that if you like a particular spider you're in a better position to find others like it, by looking for other members of the genus 

As the number of species of tarantula in the hobby grows another problem creeps in: stupid names. There are hundreds of species of tarantula kept in captivity now, and it gets harder and harder to common-name them all. Dealers are forever looking for exciting new names to sell tarantulas with (as re-using older names doesn't sell as well), leading to names like "the powder blue pink-toe", "Venezuelan Sun-Tiger", "Costa Rican Orange-mouth" etc. The binomial system allows you to reuse certain names over and over again (smithi, pulcher, murinus etc.) without confusion between them, and being in an amalgam of Latin, Greek and people's names they tend not to look daft until you start translating them.

More importantly, as common names are often mis-heard, changed or duplicates, there are numerous examples of times when people have gotten wrong care advice for their pets, e.g. this.

*So what's wrong with the binomial system?*

To some it lacks a certain charm, and while useful to us _in_ the hobby, it's not good for explaining to visitors, family etc. what you actually keep.

Some people have trouble learning them at first, though most people can get it after they've gotten a few. It's not difficult, but it looks impossible to start with.

Also, due to the rules of taxonomy, names can change. If it turns out that a spider was put in the wrong genus, then it gets moved. If a spider has been officially described to science twice people can use one name for years before someone else finds an old paper with a different name (the first name given to a species is the one we go with). 

An example [as far as I understand the situation] of both is the spider _Tapinauchenius violaceus._ It was described as _Tapinauchenius purpureus_, until someone noticed that it was already described as _Ephebopus violaceus_... _Ephebopus _being a related genus. _Ephebopus_ was the wrong genus, but the _violaceus _part of the name has seniority, so it becomes _Tapinauchenius violaceus.

_However, most names don't change or don't change often, and when they do most people pick them up pretty quickly, the only issue being that older sites and resources may be using a different name...




This is all I can think of for now, what do you think? Anything glaringly wrong or missing? Any suggestions for improvements?
I'm sure there was meant to be one more section...


----------



## Dayle (Jan 18, 2010)

good post, found it a very interesting read thumbs up


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

Sorry, can't critique it as I just don't know enough, but from the limited reading I've done, it sounds a fantastic write up.

Top work!


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

EDIT: Deleted, duplicate post, server problems?


----------



## AnythingWithAShell (Apr 14, 2009)

Very good call on highlighting only genus capitalisation 



Corsetts said:


> EDIT: Deleted, duplicate post, server problems?


Yeah I've had this a bit today too. Keep getting told I've done a duplicate post but when I get to the thread there's only one :lol2:


----------



## TerrynTula (Sep 5, 2010)

Very thorough, very valid, very well written,very well done.


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

nice one Tobe :no1:


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Nice thread hun


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Nice one dude.


One slight comment: "Genuses"? Oh dear. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

GRB said:


> Nice one dude.
> 
> 
> One slight comment: "Genuses"? Oh dear. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


Can we put you back in the box now :flrt::flrt:


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

It's now been added to the FAQ btw: victory:


----------



## ducks (Mar 28, 2010)

fantastic.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Good write up Toby! I'm sure it'll be of great help to many people.
Only (very tiny) mistakes I picked up on were "genuses" as Grant pointed out, you've got "decent" instead of "descent" and Tapinauchenius violaceus was moved from Ephebopus to Avicularia before Tapinauchenius (This probably confuses the excellent example you've used though). 

As for things to add (although maybe it goes beyond your intentions for the thread), you could add some info about the history of using scientific names and how they came about or perhaps, some mention to sub species. A few people on here keep centipedes and since quite a few of them have trinomial names perhaps it'd be of benefit to them.

All in all an excellent article and probably well deserving of being added to the stickies.


----------



## Hedgewitch (Feb 12, 2008)

Thanks guys 



GRB said:


> Nice one dude.
> 
> 
> One slight comment: "Genuses"? Oh dear. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


I knew something wasn't right there... genus' ? 



GRB said:


> It's now been added to the FAQ btw: victory:


Awesome, thanks for that, though this was kinda intended as a rough draft. 



Craig Mackay said:


> Good write up Toby! I'm sure it'll be of great help to many people.
> Only (very tiny) mistakes I picked up on were "genuses" as Grant pointed out, you've got "decent" instead of "descent" and Tapinauchenius violaceus was moved from Ephebopus to Avicularia before Tapinauchenius (This probably confuses the excellent example you've used though).
> 
> As for things to add (although maybe it goes beyond your intentions for the thread), you could add some info about the history of using scientific names and how they came about or perhaps, some mention to sub species. A few people on here keep centipedes and since quite a few of them have trinomial names perhaps it'd be of benefit to them.
> ...


Heh, I use a spell checker, but I do get confused over some words, I'll remember that in future.

Also, thanks for the _T. violaceus _information. But the moved it to _Avicularia_? Really? I can understand confusing _Ephebopus _and _Tapinauchenius_, but thinking it's an avic? They look nothing like avics (my male won't even live above ground).

Stranger things have happened I suppose...


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Hedgewitch said:


> I knew something wasn't right there... genus' ?


Genera.


----------



## peterparker (Nov 11, 2010)

*SuperDuper*

:2thumb:Regardless of the teribal speling mistaks I fink it's a grate post...:2thumb:

Thanks for taking the time out to do it for us mere ****'s (someone had to say something lol)
I have to say I enjoy being a **** compared to a gastropod mollusc I know :lol2:


So Thank you for sharing your knowledge, it is appreciated, and I for one learnt alot from reading this.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Hedgewitch said:


> Also, thanks for the _T. violaceus _information. But the moved it to _Avicularia_? Really? I can understand confusing _Ephebopus _and _Tapinauchenius_, but thinking it's an avic? They look nothing like avics (my male won't even live above ground).


Yeah, it is a strange one. I haven't read the paper so I don't know what they based the transfer on. Here's the reference to _T. violaceus_ from the World Spider Catalogue:

mf *violaceus* (Mello-Leitão, 1930)....................French Guiana, Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:001840]
_Ephebopus v._ Mello-Leitão, 1930b: 56, f. 4 (Df).
_Avicularia violacea_ Lucas, Silva & Bertani, 1992: 163 (Tf from _Ephebopus_).
_T. purpureus_ Schmidt, 1995c: 11, f. 1 (Dmf) [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002485].
_T. purpureus_ Schmidt, 2003l: 206, f. 617 (f).
_T. purpureus_ Peters, 2005b: 111, f. 353-356 (f).
_T. v._ West et al., 2008: 39, f. 21-22 (f, Sm).


----------



## ducks (Mar 28, 2010)

just out of interest, did we get the extra points for knowing about the Linnaen system or about Dr Strangelove?


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Best thread that I have seen on here in a long time.
Big kiss.


----------



## Hedgewitch (Feb 12, 2008)

GRB said:


> Genera.


Sometimes I shock myself with my own fail...



Craig Mackay said:


> Yeah, it is a strange one. I haven't read the paper so I don't know what they based the transfer on. Here's the reference to _T. violaceus_ from the World Spider Catalogue:
> 
> mf *violaceus* (Mello-Leitão, 1930)....................French Guiana, Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:001840]
> _Ephebopus v._ Mello-Leitão, 1930b: 56, f. 4 (Df).
> ...


If you can find the paper, let me know please.



ducks said:


> just out of interest, did we get the extra points for knowing about the Linnaen system or about Dr Strangelove?


Dr. Strangelove  You get +1 point.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Hedgewitch said:


> If you can find the paper, let me know please.


I've had a really good look for it before but to no avail. I can't even find the abstract for it. If I ever come across it I'll be sure to send it to ya though.


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Lucas, S., P. I. da Silva Jr. & R. Bertani, 1992. The Brazilian species of the spider genus _Ephebopus_ Simon, 1892 (Araneae, Theraphosidae, Aviculariinae), with description of _E. uatuman_ n. sp. _ Mems Inst. Butantan_ *53:* 161-166.

I'd have to inter-library loan this I'd reckon, but here's the article reference in full.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Cheers Grant, I've already got the reference for it though. I was actually looking for this paper a few weeks ago for the description of _E. uatuman_. I can usually find bit and pieces of papers on google scholar or google books etc but more recent papers always seem to be a bit trickier to track down.


----------



## SkinheadOi85 (Sep 28, 2008)

is this stickied? if not i vote it is.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Hedgewitch said:


> If you can find the paper, let me know please.


Well, I couldn't find the paper in question but I did find this one:

West, R. C., S. D. Marshall, C. S. Fukishima & R. Bertani (2000: Review and cladistic analysis of the Neotropical tarantula genus Ephebopus Simon 1892 (Araneae: Theraphosidae) with notes on the Aviculariinae. Zootaxa (1894): 35-58

It's a rather interesting paper that covers a lot more than the title would suggest. In this paper it says that it was moved to Avicularia by Lucas based only on the original description as he couldn't find the holotype. He based the move on the first ocular row being procurved, a pattern on the dorsal side of abdomen and the division of the posterior tarsal scopulae.


----------



## Hedgewitch (Feb 12, 2008)

Thanks Craig, that at least is an interesting read.

Still not sure if I agree with the inclusion of _Heteroscodra _and _Stromatopelma_, but having said that: I'm not exactly a spider taxonomist, these people probably know a little more than I do about the subject :lol2:. We'll see when someone gets some DNA analysis done at least.


----------



## ducks (Mar 28, 2010)

Hedgewitch said:


> Dr. Strangelove  You get +1 point.


ha! if I save them up, do I get a mug with a recipe for onion soup on it?


----------



## Hedgewitch (Feb 12, 2008)

ducks said:


> ha! if I save them up, do I get a mug with a recipe for onion soup on it?


You might do, regrettably the point system is completely arbitrary. As such you may gain and lose points at any time for any reason.


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Hedgewitch said:


> You might do, regrettably the point system is completely arbitrary. As such you may gain and lose points at any time for any reason.


-1 to Toby for sig-stalking me again.


----------



## Hedgewitch (Feb 12, 2008)

garlicpickle said:


> -1 to Toby for sig-stalking me again.


At least it's not as bad as the regular stalking...


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Hedgewitch said:


> At least it's not as bad as the regular stalking...


Come in for a cuppa? You must be cold out there.


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

GRB said:


> Lucas, S., P. I. da Silva Jr. & R. Bertani, 1992. The Brazilian species of the spider genus _Ephebopus_ Simon, 1892 (Araneae, Theraphosidae, Aviculariinae), with description of _E. uatuman_ n. sp. _ Mems Inst. Butantan_ *53:* 161-166.
> 
> *I'd have to inter-library loan this I'd reckon, but here's the article reference in full.*


You could inter-library loan this, or if that's to no avail, you could always PM me your email and I can send you a copy ( and anyone else who wants it )

Fair enough it's not the best condition of papers but still readable.

Anyone who wants it, just PM me your email and I will send out a copy.


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

snowgoose said:


> You could inter-library loan this, or if that's to no avail, you could always PM me your email and I can send you a copy ( and anyone else who wants it )
> 
> Fair enough it's not the best condition of papers but still readable.
> 
> Anyone who wants it, just PM me your email and I will send out a copy.


I've now uploaded this paper to MediaFire, and is now available to download for all those interested.

Lucas - Description Of Ephebopus uatuman.pdf


----------



## gaijin_lost (May 24, 2011)

I understood this which all in all makes me pretty damn surprised.
BUT why do some have 3 names? the only scientific name I really know is Lampropeltis triangulum sinaloae which is a sinaloan milk snake, why does this have 3 instead of the usual 2, does the fact that it's a sub-species have any baring on it?
if so why not just give it 2 like the rest?

if it's easier for you to explain using another animal then that'd be fine but that's the only tri-named animal I know.


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

Basically like you said, it's a sub-species

Lampropeltis triangulum sinaloae

Lampropeltis - Genus 

triangulum - Species

sinaloae - Sub-Species ( in this case, Sinaloan)

As I'm sure you're aware there's many sub-species of this snake, eatch will have differentiating facts such as colour, locale, etc etc .


Hopefully that makes a little sense :lol2:


----------



## gaijin_lost (May 24, 2011)

that helps a fair bit, thanks.
I only decided it was a good idea to start learning the real names a couple of days ago, it seems almost impossible.
is there a website that lists all known species? or at the least publishes changes in names as with the changing names it's even more like moving the goalposts than learning a foreign language (which it essentially is) :bash:


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

The World Spider Catalog, V12.0 by N. I. Platnick © 2000 — 2011 AMNH


----------



## egalitarianandy22 (Aug 1, 2011)

oh no! Not another interest. You've got me risking peril and p45's trying to look at biological classification trees while i should be working. Im already amazed by quantum mechanics, particle and wave theory, indirect reciprocity in the natural world, phsycology (mostly split brain studies and other assorted experiments) many more on top and i still dont really understand any of the above. Now i got to add mastering this to my list! I guess im trying to say thanks, a very interesting lunch time read.


----------

