Tweet
Originally posted by Phil Rea
View Post
Scientific name, not Latin 
Another scenario is that the spider could already have been described (i.e. already have a scientific name), but no one has compared it to either the original published description or one of the types, so it is temporarily unknown. For example Cyriopagopus sp. blue, is now known as Lampropelma violaceopes (which was originally described by H. C. Abraham in 1924).
It can be relatively straightforward to work out the genus that a spider falls into if it's not a new one (waits for the flames
), so that the first part of the name (e.g. Aphonopelma) can be determined, but to pin down a specimen to a single species is enormously more difficult for various reasons.
Another scenario is that the spider could already have been described (i.e. already have a scientific name), but no one has compared it to either the original published description or one of the types, so it is temporarily unknown. For example Cyriopagopus sp. blue, is now known as Lampropelma violaceopes (which was originally described by H. C. Abraham in 1924).
It can be relatively straightforward to work out the genus that a spider falls into if it's not a new one (waits for the flames
), so that the first part of the name (e.g. Aphonopelma) can be determined, but to pin down a specimen to a single species is enormously more difficult for various reasons.I have read so many contradictory articles.... people were saying it would probably be re-classified as possibly Cyriopagopus violaceps a few years ago as Lampropelma was probably incorrect in the first place.
Comment