# Parhymenopus davidsoni



## massaman (May 1, 2009)

anyone ever try to raise or breed Parymenopus Davisoni Mantis?


----------



## Griever (May 1, 2009)

Oh lawdy, that thing is gorgeous! if its not in the culture it sure should be!


----------



## Christian (May 2, 2009)

Give me some and I'll try it... :lol: 

The right spelling is _Parymenopus davisoni_.


----------



## Rob Byatt (May 2, 2009)

Christian said:


> Give me some and I'll try it... :lol: The right spelling is _Parymenopus davisoni_.


Are you sure


----------



## massaman (May 2, 2009)

http://www.hpmix.com/home/clerota2006/A4_11.htm#56

this shows some more images of this insect and its ooth!

parhymenopus davidsoni is the correct spelling I think

another site below that shows the instars of this mantis

http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Zoo/611...low-mantis.html

this insect can be found in highland rain forests of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia

Since I am not from any of those places it would be pretty hard for me to obtain this species but maybe we need a mantis request section on this forum and maybe someone who resides around those areas can be on the lookout for some!


----------



## Rob Byatt (May 2, 2009)

Christian said:


> Give me some and I'll try it... :lol: The right spelling is _Parymenopus davisoni_.





Rob Byatt said:


> Are you sure


Before lots of wikipedia quotes come along, I was only saying this because they are both synonyms.....though I though _Parhymenopus_ was the current spelling.......


----------



## Christian (May 2, 2009)

This is the same old problem: just because something is written on the net, it must be true, right? I'm sorry guys, but this is wrong! The species was never named _davidsoni_, despite of this name being more popular among Malaysian traders. It's _davisoni_. And the generic epitheton was erroneously changed from _Parymenopus_ to _Parhymenopus_ in an old revisionary work and was used as such until recently, when about 2 years ago this failure was pointed out and corrected by Roy.

Of course the wrong spelling yields more Google results, but I thought some guys were interested in the correct form.


----------



## PhilinYuma (May 2, 2009)

Christian said:


> This is the same old problem: just because something is written on the net, it must be true, right? I'm sorry guys, but this is wrong! The species was never named _davidsoni_, despite of this name being more popular among Malaysian traders. It's _davisoni_. And the generic epitheton was erroneously changed from _Parymenopus_ to _Parhymenopus_ in an old revisionary work and was used as such until recently, when about 2 years ago this failure was pointed out and corrected by Roy.Of course the wrong spelling yields more Google results, but I thought some guys were interested in the correct form.


Well, Christian, "some guys [and gals, of course]" are interested in the correct form. I go one step further than you and try to work out the classical roots of binomials (I may be misjudging you here, of course, but I am mindful of your statemenet that you thought that "blephar" in M. blepharopsis meant "devil"). In this case, the error obviously came from a mistaken reference to Hymenaios, who lent his name to both the Hymenoptera and the family Hymenopodidae. This forum, however, comprises mantis keepers and enthusiasts who learn their art unecumbered by a knowledge of "generic epitheta" and "nomena nuda." Indeed, many experienced breeders in this country capitalize the species name in a binomial.

You have been an outspoken advocate, as is consistent with your profession, of using binomials instead of "common" names and of using journals and scholarly books instead of relying on the internet, apparently unaware that most people on this forum do not have access to a university library and might well not know how to use it. If they did, and spent an hour or so looking up Parhymenopus davisoni in a scholarly text over two years old, they would come away blissfully misinformed, according to the current revision. The Internet, on the other hand, is at our fingertips, it provides pretty pix and frequently accurate (as in this case) information.

You are an invaluable and highly respected source of information on this forum, Christian, but when you elevate taxonomy to the apparent level of a _sine qua non_ of mantis keeping, and chide us for "believing that everything on the internet is right," I must echo Rhett's reply when Scarlett asks him, "What will become of me...?" (with an apropriate revision of the species name, of course).


----------



## Christian (May 3, 2009)

I think you interpreted too much into my intention to clarify scientific names (this last attempt was only an example). I am completely aware that only a few people have access to scientific literature or the willingness or interest to bore themselves with this stuff. My opinion is that hobbyists should try to avoid popular names and use scientific ones, but anything beyond this is far too much for "usual" (please don't misunderstand this) hobbyists. That is why I write certain things, to provide people with information they are usually not aware of. Thus, they get the destilled information from someone who has done the background research (of course I don't do this for the forum, but for other purposes, but why not share the infos with the community?), so they don't have to work with misinformation.

So, it's sufficient when a few guys like me engage in such stuff. On the other hand, I am really annoyed (yes, I am human and have the right to feel annoyed) by people who have not such a background but try to contradict me with internet wisdom. I don't have a problem engaging in a good discussion (as most of you know), but the arguments should have a thorough basis. While many discussions reflect the personal opinion and can go for many threads, scientific issues are more difficult. Not that there can't be more than one opinion, but to contradict someone you must at least know what you are talking about. To come to an end: no hobbyist has to have a taxonomic background, but then people should at least believe those who have one. And yes, I have to repeat that the internet is only a poor source regarding mantids. Almost all Wiki-sites are poor. I am sorry that mantids are badly represented on the net, but they are a difficult taxon (taxonomically speaking).

I just wanted to give the right name to avoid much confusion. I am sure that some members here are interested in it. I do it for those ones. The others can continue to use the wrong names if they want, that is not my problem. I provided the correct information and that's all I am inclined to do.

By the way, scientific names are not always logical. Nevertheless, there are rules how and why they have to be used even if the translation is misleading.


----------



## Rob Byatt (May 3, 2009)

Christian said:


> And the generic epitheton was erroneously changed from _Parymenopus_ to _Parhymenopus_ in an old revisionary work and was used as such until recently, when about 2 years ago this failure was pointed out and corrected by Roy.


Thanks for pointing this out Christian; I was using a 2005 reference.

It is such a shame when people misinterprete the words of people who actually know what they are talking about. The importance of correctly spelling scientific names cannot be trivialised, there is no point me going into this on a scientific level here, sometimes it takes more than scientific understanding to appreciate this. It also takes years of experience of the problems it causes, something that cannot be preached, only learned.

So, a question. What is so wrong about educating and helping people?

Rob.


----------



## PhilinYuma (May 3, 2009)

I don't think that I "read to much into" your statement, or the one on another, recent thread, Christian, but I find it much easier to go along with your current, more sober one.

I suspect that those of us who take it for granted that you provide the correct nomenclature don't write to say so, and some members who challenge your judgment have no idea of your qualifications. Once again, a brief mention in your profile of what you do would be helpful to such newcomers (I just made a quick check to make sure that you hadn't done so in the interim  ).

In this particular case, I was a little surprised that you didn't educate us on the zoological definition of "synonym," but I think that it was the questioning of your diagnosis that made you see red!

I can give you one cheerful note regarding your blanket condemntaion of Internet sources on mantids, though. I have seen entries on both German and American Internet forums by a guy calling himself Christian, and often, a lot of what he says appears to be accurate!


----------



## Christian (May 3, 2009)

Actually, I don't see red! :lol: 

It's more that "fighting against windmills" feeling that I am faced with every time I try to explain something that sounds uncomfortable to the public. I should simply cease to explain anything, I don't know why I'm still doing it.

Anyway, explaining what a synonym is was not part of this thread. I should keep it simple, it's hard enough even without being a smart a**...

There are only 2-3 sites on the net trying to keep mantid taxonomy at some actualized level, which may be regarded as preliminary, by the way. See, e.g.

http://www.mantids.de/index.html

http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/HomePage.aspx

And newer works are not included immediately. I have to add that my personal opinion differs from that of the authors of that sites in some points. However, most other sites, whether hobbyist or Wiki-sites, are not reliable with reference to taxonomic issues.


----------



## Rob Byatt (May 3, 2009)

This is curious.......  

The second link you gave above is the same source that I referrenced to earlier, except this one os online and mione in ring bound  

My copy says _Parhymenopus_ and the online says _Parymenopus_ :lol:


----------



## PhilinYuma (May 3, 2009)

Rob Byatt said:


> This is curious.......  The second link you gave above is the same source that I referrenced to earlier, except this one os online and mione in ring bound
> 
> My copy says _Parhymenopus_ and the online says _Parymenopus_ :lol:


Love those silent online revisions! By the way Rob, you understand, now, why these two names are _not _synonyms? B)


----------



## Rob Byatt (May 4, 2009)

PhilinYuma said:


> Love those silent online revisions! By the way Rob, you understand, now, why these two names are _not _synonyms? B)


But they are


----------



## PhilinYuma (May 4, 2009)

Rob Byatt said:


> But they are


O.K., Rob. Here's my understanding. Then you give me yours and Christian can shoot one or both of us.

"Synonym" has different meanings in entomology and zoology. Language is my area of competence, so I'll give it first:

Etymologically, synonyms are two or more words that have the same aproximate meaning. "scared" and "frightened" are synonyms as is "afeard" (spelled thusly) in England, (surprise! it's in Webster's too!). "fritened" in current English is not, but merely a misspelling, "shitless" is or not depending on whether one accepts "vulgar slang" and "verstort" (sorry about the missing thingies over the "o" Christian) is not because it is not an incorporated English word even though it has the same meaning.

Synonyms in zoology are much rarer and usually occur when two researchers, working independantly, describe the same species (taxon) and give it different names. In such a case, the older (first published) name becomes the "senior synonym" and any junior ones get the boot. This is something of an over simplification, as any dinosaur paleontologist would tell you (remember the Great Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus Controversy?) but it will serve my purpose here. It does not apply to Parymenopus davisoni. versus Parhymenopus davisoni (I don't think that "davidsoni" ever appeared in a scholarly work). In this case, someone copying the original name into a new checklist, simply made a typo. No one has desribed the same taxon not knowing that the name Parymenopus existed and decided to call it Parhymenopus. The source of the error is a simple case of analogy. Obviously, a binomial can be changed when a taxonomist's revision of a given genus, say, "gains traction," but that is not what we are discussing here.

Late last year, Rob, you sent me a friendly P.M., and on checking your profile, I remarked your interest in systematics. I look forward to a devastating reply.  

Addendum: Yay, I got "shitless" past the machine! :lol:


----------



## Christian (May 4, 2009)

Errors due to misspelling are also incorporated into the synonym list of a species. A synonym isn't just the name applied by another taxonomist which may turn out to apply to an already described species but refers to every name change the species was faced with in history. For instance, the genus _Acontista_ was initially described as _Acontistes_. This name was preoccupied, so it was later changed into _Acontista_. Rehn introduced _Acontiothespis_ to avoid confusion. However, Roy pointed out that a change of the ending validates the name, so, today, both _Acontistes_ and _Acontiothespis_ are listed as synonyms of _Acontista_. There are several examples, so _Hymenopus_ was also named _Hymenopa_ by some author, or _Metallyticus_ is found under _Metalleutica_. _Idolomantis_ was used for the preoccupied _Idolum_; _diabolicum_, on the other hand, was misspelled _diabroticum_ in some articles. A famous source of failures is _Creobroter_: it's also "known" as _Creoboter_ or _Creobater_.

The list of synonyms is intented to facilitate the recognition of the species in concernin older literature, regardless where a particular synonym originated from.


----------



## PhilinYuma (May 4, 2009)

Thanks for the definitive reply, Christian, but before you shoot me, let me find my old biology profeesor and fix him first. I'm probably too late, though.

I know that you would have said the same thing Rob, if you could just type faster!


----------



## Christian (May 4, 2009)

It's not as much a problem of definition as of usage. You may be right regarding the strict definition of the term, however, in practice the rules are applied, well, more practically.


----------

