Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New articles
New media comments
New article comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Articles
New articles
New comments
Search articles
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Dark Theme
Contact us
Close Menu
Are you a Tarantula hobbyist? If so, we invite you to join our community! Once you join you'll be able to post messages, upload pictures of your pets and enclosures and chat with other Tarantula enthusiasts.
Sign up today!
Forums
Tarantula Forum Topics
General Tarantula Discussion
Reclassifications
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Stan Schultz" data-source="post: 226178" data-attributes="member: 28438"><p>They were always the same spider! It was our messed up naming that was wrong. I can't go into the full story here, but it includes incompetence (too many inexperienced or poorly educated pseudo-researchers), unethical naming practices (grant time'll do that to you!), sexual dimorphism (males and females of the same species given different names), simple human error, and much more.</p><p></p><p>The present instance is a distinct exception to the common state of affairs where taxonomists determine that two or more species were somehow sharing the same name. So the usual case is that we go from one name to several. That recently happened to the <em>B</em>. <em>smithi</em>/<em>hamorii</em> complex. </p><p></p><p>For decades and decades there has been a quiet but constant war among taxonomists. Traditionally, there are two groups: the Lumpers and the Splitters. The Lumpers have the inclination that if two specimens or populations seem to look the same (have very similar characteristics) they are the same species, or are so closely related that they might as well pass for the same species. <em>B</em>. <em>smithi</em>/<em>hamorii</em> are an example of this. The Splitters hold the inclination that the two slightly different specimens or populations are in fact two distinct species that are evolving away from each other, and that if we can distinguish them, they are in fact distinct entities and therefore deserve different names. And the whole argument devolves from the fact that taxonomists don't have a very good working definition of what a species really is. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: rgb(85, 57, 130)">Ernst Mayr</span></strong></a> (a huge name in evolutionary biology and taxonomy) came as close as anyone has ever come to defining a "species," but even his efforts haven't solved the dilemma.</p><p></p><p>DNA and other chemical means were at one time hoped to be the final answer to the question, but alas, these lines of research seem to have merely given the Splitters more ammunition to justify making evolutionary trees more and more complex (i.e., creating more and more new species names).</p><p></p><p>There are strong arguments in favor of each of these attitudes, but this post is already getting too long. It's time for me to quit. If this topic really interests you, try googling some of the terms I've used here.</p><p></p><p>Stan</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stan Schultz, post: 226178, member: 28438"] They were always the same spider! It was our messed up naming that was wrong. I can't go into the full story here, but it includes incompetence (too many inexperienced or poorly educated pseudo-researchers), unethical naming practices (grant time'll do that to you!), sexual dimorphism (males and females of the same species given different names), simple human error, and much more. The present instance is a distinct exception to the common state of affairs where taxonomists determine that two or more species were somehow sharing the same name. So the usual case is that we go from one name to several. That recently happened to the [I]B[/I]. [I]smithi[/I]/[I]hamorii[/I] complex.[I] [/I] For decades and decades there has been a quiet but constant war among taxonomists. Traditionally, there are two groups: the Lumpers and the Splitters. The Lumpers have the inclination that if two specimens or populations seem to look the same (have very similar characteristics) they are the same species, or are so closely related that they might as well pass for the same species. [I]B[/I]. [I]smithi[/I]/[I]hamorii[/I] are an example of this. The Splitters hold the inclination that the two slightly different specimens or populations are in fact two distinct species that are evolving away from each other, and that if we can distinguish them, they are in fact distinct entities and therefore deserve different names. And the whole argument devolves from the fact that taxonomists don't have a very good working definition of what a species really is. [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr'][B][COLOR=rgb(85, 57, 130)]Ernst Mayr[/COLOR][/B][/URL] (a huge name in evolutionary biology and taxonomy) came as close as anyone has ever come to defining a "species," but even his efforts haven't solved the dilemma. DNA and other chemical means were at one time hoped to be the final answer to the question, but alas, these lines of research seem to have merely given the Splitters more ammunition to justify making evolutionary trees more and more complex (i.e., creating more and more new species names). There are strong arguments in favor of each of these attitudes, but this post is already getting too long. It's time for me to quit. If this topic really interests you, try googling some of the terms I've used here. Stan [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Tarantula Forum Topics
General Tarantula Discussion
Reclassifications
Top