Normal
Doesn't quite work like that. What we understand about spiders from studying them has moved forward from those years. If they had the means to travel and collect as widely as we have now along with the technology to analyze samples, they would have come out with the same results. Without people like Pocock, we would have no idea what we have for a start and there would be many more hybrids out there than what we currently have. Also, many spiders are reclassified and then later moved back to the original Genus/species.Look at something like Poecilotheria formosa. It was described in 1899 by Pocock. In 2006 Rao et al. described a species called P.nallamalaiensis. This was later then discovered to be formosa, so the name nallamalaiensis was dropped again.Same thing with vittata. Was described in 1895 by Pocock and then changed to pederseni in 2001 by Kirk and when looked at in 2005 was still considered to be pederseni by Peters. When looking at original papers again, it was found that vittata was in fact the correct name, and so was changed back.Naming and describing spiders is a matter of opinion and as long as the paper is peer reviewed and accepted it is valid. As we learn more about the spiders (Especially with DNA analysis becoming more available), spiders that newer guys described and named could be synonymised with spiders that were described by the Pocock's of the world. In the scientific community people are described as lumpers and splitters. Some believe that similar spiders are the same thing and others believe that similar spiders with slightly different characteristics are actually seperate species. With the DNA analysis here, I believe that many wild species will be split. As for what we have in the hobby, that is anyone's guess.They have been here, and have been removed from here too...Agree fully. Common names differ among countries. If I told you that I had a gewone bobbejaan spinnekop, would you understand what I was talking about?
Doesn't quite work like that. What we understand about spiders from studying them has moved forward from those years. If they had the means to travel and collect as widely as we have now along with the technology to analyze samples, they would have come out with the same results. Without people like Pocock, we would have no idea what we have for a start and there would be many more hybrids out there than what we currently have. Also, many spiders are reclassified and then later moved back to the original Genus/species.
Look at something like Poecilotheria formosa. It was described in 1899 by Pocock. In 2006 Rao et al. described a species called P.nallamalaiensis. This was later then discovered to be formosa, so the name nallamalaiensis was dropped again.
Same thing with vittata. Was described in 1895 by Pocock and then changed to pederseni in 2001 by Kirk and when looked at in 2005 was still considered to be pederseni by Peters. When looking at original papers again, it was found that vittata was in fact the correct name, and so was changed back.
Naming and describing spiders is a matter of opinion and as long as the paper is peer reviewed and accepted it is valid. As we learn more about the spiders (Especially with DNA analysis becoming more available), spiders that newer guys described and named could be synonymised with spiders that were described by the Pocock's of the world. In the scientific community people are described as lumpers and splitters. Some believe that similar spiders are the same thing and others believe that similar spiders with slightly different characteristics are actually seperate species. With the DNA analysis here, I believe that many wild species will be split. As for what we have in the hobby, that is anyone's guess.
They have been here, and have been removed from here too...
Agree fully. Common names differ among countries. If I told you that I had a gewone bobbejaan spinnekop, would you understand what I was talking about?