# - Please ID the latin name.



## CockroachYet (Jul 24, 2008)

- Hello, please help me to ID their latin name. Thanks in advance.

- Sorry for the too worst images because were taked with my cell-phone of lowest pixel-capacity ((also out of focus)).

- She actually have a size of 9.3 cm from head to tail-tip. I had it from she got a size of 2.5 cm.

- In the pics she is killing &amp; eating a very huge-size "worm" of _Zoophobas morio_.

- Regards. Roberto.


----------



## CockroachYet (Aug 1, 2008)

- Hello all, some idea of their taxonomy-latin-name ?? thanks. Roberto.


----------



## Peter Clausen (Aug 1, 2008)

Hola Roberto,

My parents are actually in Mexico City (and visiting Morelia) right now.

I can only make out the very small wings (buds?) of your mantis and not much else. Is there any way you can take a better photo?


----------



## chrisboy101 (Aug 1, 2008)

ive tried looking up this species. but i cant find it anywhere


----------



## Meiji (Aug 1, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick_Mantis has some information on Stick Mantises in general. I'm inclined to think it's genus _Brunneria_ although the sources I've consulted places species of this either north of Mexico or south of it.


----------



## Christian (Aug 1, 2008)

Ouch, that Wikipedia article is really bad... &lt;_&lt; 

I am not quite sure, as the photos are really bad, but I suggest it may be a species of _Phasmomantis_. According to EHRMANN (2002) only _Ph. sumichrasti _occurs in Mexico.


----------



## Peter Clausen (Aug 1, 2008)

I don't think the article is really bad. People use common names and always will. The wiki article is a first step for many people who are showing a small interest in mantises. If they only know a stick mantis versus a flower mantis, they are still more educated on the subject than most people. Most people don't know a mantis from a grasshopper.

If somebody does a search on the web for "stick mantis", I'd rather they end up at that particular wiki page because it actually provides some additional links to other pages (many of them are works in progress) where they can continue their education if they want to.

Science has its own language. Our hobby has its own language. The general human population has its own language on mantises. We might not all speak the same language, but I try to appreciate even the smallest bit of interest that people show in a subject I find so interesting (while not trying to overwhelm them with the details that would push them away...unless they ask.).


----------



## Meiji (Aug 1, 2008)

Christian said:


> Ouch, that Wikipedia article is really bad... &lt;_&lt;
> 
> In what way?


----------



## Christian (Aug 1, 2008)

Because of some pooling of mantid taxa without any taxonomic sense or ecological context. You can explain that a so-called stick mantis is a very elongated mantis, but is this info worth an article on Wikipedia? The article just focuses on some senseless vernacular names without any serious backgound info on the mechanisms of body elongation and its consequences.

It's not just that common names lack any seriousness or that there is a difference between science and hobby. But that article lacks any reason or sense, whether for hobbyists or scientists.

However, I made my opinion on Wikipedia clear already. I don't see any sense in criticizing it any longer. I can just give the advice that if you are interested in real background info on mantids, Wikipedia is actually the worst place to look at.


----------



## Peter Clausen (Aug 1, 2008)

I view wikipedia like a dictionary. A general dictionary is not a resource for people wanting to learn about mantises, but it is a tool for people that want to know the definition of the word mantis.

Wikipedia is like the dictionary in this sense. If somebody that doesn't know much about mantises wants to look up the word "stick mantis", they won't find it in the dictionary, but they will find it on wikipedia. From the current version of that page they can see some mantis species that are sometimes referred to (correctly or not) as stick mantises.

A lot of people seem really hung up on labels.

1 in a 100 million people care that this animal is called _Hymenopus coronatus_.

1 in million care that it is called an orchid mantis.

1 in 100,000 have ever seen a photo of this animal.

Most people don't care.

I'm not a fan of common names as used in the hobby, but they play a very important role in the development of a person's understanding of nature. My wife brought in a true bug from our backyard yesterday and asked me what it was. She thought it was a termite. I know what it is not, but I do not know what it is. I can't even really tell whether it is herbivorous or predatory without feeding it. So, I can call it Hemiptera or I can call it a true bug, but I have no idea what the genus or species is. And it doesn't matter because I have nobody in my life to share the experience of this bug with. Even if I had the correct scientific name, who would want to talk to me about this bug? It's not a species that would interest anybody in the hobby as a pet. Only 1 in 100 million people would even give it a 2nd look (or perhaps a spouse might collect it if she was married to a bug nerd.).

Anyway, the dictionary and wikipedia are media for the general human population. They are not intitially intended to be final resource on any subject (not for a thousand years, anyway). I've found a lot of really good information in those two resources that allows me to relate to the majority of people on the planet. There are new members on Mantidforum all the time and I think resources like wikipedia to provide some many of us with some information from which to base our questions.

I'm just grateful when anybody shows a curiosity about Hymenopus or orchid mantids or white mantises or grasshopper-thingys. I share as much information as I have time for and knowledge of. When I can't answer a question or direct them to a resource, Christian is the person I contact for the hard questions.

I have a lot of respect for the people that donate their time to wikipedia.org. That's a selfless act of giving to the world community as far as I'm concerned. I also respect people that selfishly spend their time advancing their own knowledge about the finest details of a subject to the point where they share nothing. Christian donates a ton of time to keeping us all in line here and it is GREATLY appreciated!


----------



## mrblue (Aug 1, 2008)

"I view wikipedia like a dictionary".

i think you are in the minority. the vast majority of people see wikipedia less like a dictionary to look up definitons, more like an encyclopaedia of information to learn from. this can be a problem, as alot of the time things on wiki are read and quoted as "facts" even if they are far from such. it is hard to tell because everyones information and contribution is equal.

i think the way you are viewing wikipedia is a little counter productive. how useful a resource can people (those who suport it and want it to grow) expect it to become when such low expectations are held of both its use and the information it should provide? omitting information that "most people don't care about" strikes me as dumbing down, or appealing to the lowest common denominator, when it has the potential to be alot more. nowhere near perfect, but... more than this. i think.


----------



## Meiji (Aug 1, 2008)

Christian said:


> Because of some pooling of mantid taxa without any taxonomic sense or ecological context. You can explain that a so-called stick mantis is a very elongated mantis, but is this info worth an article on Wikipedia? The article just focuses on some senseless vernacular names without any serious backgound info on the mechanisms of body elongation and its consequences. It's not just that common names lack any seriousness or that there is a difference between science and hobby. But that article lacks any reason or sense, whether for hobbyists or scientists.
> 
> However, I made my opinion on Wikipedia clear already. I don't see any sense in criticizing it any longer. I can just give the advice that if you are interested in real background info on mantids, Wikipedia is actually the worst place to look at.


I disagree. The article in question, "Stick Mantis" is what is known as a "disambiguation article". It leads the curious to other articles. Suppose, for example, you wanted to look up "Jet". The disambiguation page lets you know it's a rock, an aircraft, a magazine, etc. I also dislike common names. The hidden purpose of the article in question is to demonstrate how ambiguous they are. The article is not supposed to be an in-depth article about camouflage, crypsis, evolution or anything else. Without an article like this, someone is likely to Google "Stick Mantis" and walk away with the false assurance that it refers to a single species when it does not.


----------



## Birdfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Imo common names are just to vague (flower/twig/bark/eyed/asian/african/giant/chinese/dead-leaf/leaf/ground/feathered/grass/boxer/devil/bud-winged/lesser spotted/greater spotted/dungaree'd mantis....what do these names really mean??) why teach young learners this first only to confuse them even more with a 2nd lot of scientific/accurate/unmistakable/harder names later when they are more than capable of logging the scientific name in the first place, talk about making things tricky


----------



## CockroachYet (Aug 1, 2008)

- Many many thanks to all you whose had replied this post !



Peter said:


> Hola Roberto,My parents are actually in Mexico City (and visiting Morelia) right now.
> 
> I can only make out the very small wings (buds?) of your mantis and not much else. Is there any way you can take a better photo?


- Hello Peter ! nice to meet you again. Actually i leaved that city and i`m again in mexico city. Your parents are welcome here, them may visit my very small collection of stick-insects when them want it ! I hope that soon to load most better pics of my mantis, and yes she have bud-wings like adult.



Meiji said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick_Mantis has some information on Stick Mantises in general. I'm inclined to think it's genus _Brunneria_ although the sources I've consulted places species of this either north of Mexico or south of it.


- Thanks Meiji, she have a very similar appearance as Brunneria, it`s she a lot similar.



Christian said:


> Ouch, that Wikipedia article is really bad... &lt;_&lt; I am not quite sure, as the photos are really bad, but I suggest it may be a species of _Phasmomantis_. According to EHRMANN (2002) only _Ph. sumichrasti _occurs in Mexico.


- Thanks Christian for your help !

- Hope that the real latin-name becomes descripted here !! THANKS to all you whose participate in this thread !!


----------

