National Zoo Travesty!

[Stanley A. Schultz]

As I grow older I do not necessarily grow wiser or weaker. But, I do grow lazier!

While my gripe deals with an American institution and you Brits may not care a lot, their idiocy and the misinformation that they promulgate also effects your hobby as well. Thus, I'm merely referencing here a posting that I made on the ATS message boards rather than making the effort to repost the entire thing. Forgive me if I violate some ethical code, and by all means enjoy!

http://atshq.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11568

[Nicola Dolby]

Stan thats superb! I'll have to remember to tell my big hairy monsters not to hurt me next time I feed them. Silly idiots! Do they honestly think people will give them money to look after tarantulas described like that?

[Trevor Parsons]

WOW!!! They are just brilliant

[Colin D Wilson]

Well Stanley, thats solved my dilemma of whether or not to give up the hobby for fear of being found desiccated on my bedroom floor after one of my collection gets out in the night.
After all, if the Smithsonian make these kind of statements, who are we to argue.
we'll all have to be careful and dodge those hairs shooting out all over the place when we feed our blood crazed monsters, i hear they're accurate up to 50 feet you know !!

We get this scenario here as well Stanley, pet shops mostly, here's a little scenario i had a month or two ago.
http://www.thebts.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2459.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

[Phil Rea]

Whilst I agree entirely with your sentiments, and am disgusted regarding the misleading information about tarantulas (and indeed spiders in general) disseminated by institutions that really should know better, what sticks out to me in your post on the ATS forum is the following :

lower case 'g, ' please, per the recommendations of the American Arachnological Society's Common Names Committee.

a) Common names are a good part of what's got this hobby into the mess it is with confusing ID's, hybrids and so on.
b) Why is a prominent arachnological society promoting the use of common names, given the known problems with them?
c) What makes the ATS believe it has carte blanche to impose (what are essentially completely invented) common names on spiders? Surely the society should be encouraging the correct use of an organism's internationally recognised label, rather than some fictitious name? Scientific names are published within the papers that initially describe the species, and (for zoological organisms) are regulated by the ICZN (the important letter here being the I, for international), so doesn't giving them another arbitrary name afterwards, that may only be 'officially' recognised in the US just confuse the situation even more? Furthermore why would a Zoo recognise (or in most cases even be aware of) an ATS directive or document?

Sorry to derail your thread Stanley (and please don't take this as some sort of personal attack or an attack on the ATS in general, but I'm genuinely interested to find out the reasoning behind the purpose of having a common names committee).

[Ray Gabriel]

Whilst I agree entirely with your sentiments, and am disgusted regarding the misleading information about tarantulas (and indeed spiders in general) disseminated by institutions that really should know better, what sticks out to me in your post on the ATS forum is the following :



a) Common names are a good part of what's got this hobby into the mess it is with confusing ID's, hybrids and so on.
b) Why is a prominent arachnological society promoting the use of common names, given the known problems with them?
c) What makes the ATS believe it has carte blanche to impose (what are essentially completely invented) common names on spiders? Surely the society should be encouraging the correct use of an organism's internationally recognised label, rather than some fictitious name? Scientific names are published within the papers that initially describe the species, and (for zoological organisms) are regulated by the ICZN (the important letter here being the I, for international), so doesn't giving them another arbitrary name afterwards, that may only be 'officially' recognised in the US just confuse the situation even more? Furthermore why would a Zoo recognise (or in most cases even be aware of) an ATS directive or document?

Sorry to derail your thread Stanley (and please don't take this as some sort of personal attack or an attack on the ATS in general, but I'm genuinely interested to find out the reasoning behind the purpose of having a common names committee).

With you on this one Phil,

Ray

[Bryan_Dennis]

Agreed, the Smithsonian should have known better...Have they removed or updated the article since you approached them Stanley..?

Regarding ATS's common names comittee.....If a standard could be reached and agreed upon then i can't see a problem with each specie having it's own common name. On the contary...GBB rolls infinity easier off the tongue than Chromatopelma cyaneopubescens.
How many people would call a guinea pig Cavia porcellus or their dog Canis domesticus
Just as long as a standard was reached, the info was disseminated out to the world and everyone adhered to it there'd be no problem's..

The problems are however the same as they allways have been...conservative hobbiests, creative dealers and the fact that the naming standards would have to be worldwide.
Besides, i think theres a process of natural selection going on at the moment where common names are being mulled about...Some names seem to allready have become established while many others have several variations.
In 20 or 30 years i wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the spiders kept within the hobby haven't obtained a rock fast common name by default.

[Phil Rea]

If you are the person or persons that do the work, and describe the specimen, then you get the priveledge of giving it an internationally recognised standard name, and rightly so. A common name is just an name someone arbitrary made up. Why should the world adhere to that?

Greenbottle blue does roll off the tongue better than Chromatopelma cyaneopubescens, or Chromatopelma cyaneopubescens (Strand 1907), I agree, but to a scientist (or layperson) that can't speak English, what the heck does Greenbottle blue mean, and how is it significant? The scientific name is common to all languages, and so confusion is avoided. It's a bit swollen headed to try and impose English common names on the entire non-English speaking world, don't you think?

As for common names becoming prevalent and established in the hobby then for the reasons stated above, I sincerely hope not.

I must admit that I do like the idea of natural selection for common names though. Let the ones that are best adapted to their environment live, and the others die out. I'm sure Darwin would be proud

[Chris Sainsbury]

How many people would call a guinea pig Cavia porcellus or their dog Canis domesticus
Just as long as a standard was reached, the info was disseminated out to the world and everyone adhered to it there'd be no problem's

Hi
Tell the truth thats quite a good point. Althought on the whole I think "common" names for spiders are really stupid I can't help think why the hell does it matter to the person who only has one or two for pet keeping purposes?
At the end of the day the only reason I used the scientific ones because it is a whole lot easyier to comunicate with people when looking for those all important males etc.
If on the other hand my old dear asks anything about a a certin spider, then I usually just say some stupid "common" name followed from where in the world it comes from, as the in's and out's of scientific nomocultrure (god I cant spell!) is something I can't and do not wish to try and explain when me old dear asks what the hell does Stromatopelma calceatum mean?
What I am saying is that, I think in every country on this planet there is going to be some type of "common" name for almost everything, and in many countrys the name is going to be different in some way or another, but as long as the scientific one exists who really gives a dam.
All the best
Chris

[Richard Gallon]

I’m with Phil and Ray on this one.

When the AAS/ATS introduced their common names proposal I’ll openly admit I was generally supportive of it and its intentions. However, over the years it became obvious that the system has been ignored as an irrelevancy by the vast majority of English-speaking keepers (in the US, UK and Europe).

The proposed list flew in the face of many well-established common names, presumably in the hope of supplanting them. Quite why somebody would worry over the presence of a hyphen or a capitalised letter in a common name was beyond most people. Insisting that hyphenated words be united in to one was madness (hey, let’s alter the English language whilst we’re at it – lol).

Common names are exactly that – generated through common usage over time. Some will disappear over time (e.g. Kinani rusty red baboon, Mexican black velvet) to be replaced by more popular names (e.g. King baboon, Mexican red-rump), that’s the way of things. A static list of imposed names devised by committee will never persist.

I’ve yet to meet a serious tarantula breeder or keeper who doesn’t prefer to use scientific names. I could just imaging the look I’d get in Germany or France asking for a male “Sri Lankan ornamental tarantula” for breeding purposes. Who knows which Sri Lankan Poecilotheria species you’d end up with.

Phil, I think we should start on the official Welsh common names list to all theraphosids www.cymdeithasedwardllwyd.org.uk . I’d wager they’d get more use than say “Nigerian rustred tarantula”

Richard

[Richard Gallon]

I’m with Phil and Ray on this one.

When the AAS/ATS introduced their common names proposal I’ll openly admit I was generally supportive of it and its intentions. However, over the years it became obvious that the system has been ignored as an irrelevancy by the vast majority of English-speaking keepers (in the US, UK and Europe).

The proposed list flew in the face of many well-established common names, presumably in the hope of supplanting them. Quite why somebody would worry over the presence of a hyphen or a capitalised letter in a common name was beyond most people. Insisting that hyphenated words be united in to one was madness (hey, let’s alter the English language whilst we’re at it – lol).

Common names are exactly that – generated through common usage over time. Some will disappear over time (e.g. Kinani rusty red baboon, Mexican black velvet) to be replaced by more popular names (e.g. King baboon, Mexican red-rump), that’s the way of things. A static list of imposed names devised by committee will never persist.

I’ve yet to meet a serious tarantula breeder or keeper who doesn’t prefer to use scientific names. I could just imaging the look I’d get in Germany or France asking for a male “Sri Lankan ornamental tarantula” for breeding purposes. Who knows which Sri Lankan Poecilotheria species you’d end up with.

Phil, I think we should start on the official Welsh common names list to all theraphosids www.cymdeithasedwardllwyd.org.uk . I’d wager they’d get more use than say “Nigerian rustred tarantula”

Richard

[Phil Rea]

I’ve yet to meet a serious tarantula breeder or keeper who doesn’t prefer to use scientific names. I could just imaging the look I’d get in Germany or France asking for a male “Sri Lankan ornamental tarantula” for breeding purposes. Who knows which Sri Lankan Poecilotheria species you’d end up with.

Phil, I think we should start on the official Welsh common names list to all theraphosids www.cymdeithasedwardllwyd.org.uk . I’d wager they’d get more use than say “Nigerian rustred tarantula”

Richard

In the Germany or France scenario above, you could show them a picture of the particular Poecilotheria species you were interested in Richard. I reckon you'd be OK then. Maybe point it out to them on a dirty great poster or something like that

As for the Welsh common names, that'd be fun

"Pry copyn tin coch o Fecsico" = Mexican red-rump.

Fantastic