# Scientific names - correct nomenclature



## Rob Byatt (Aug 29, 2006)

Ok, it's time for my weekly rant :wink:

I know this was never meant to be a scientifically accurate site, so it doesn't matter if anyone follows these guidelines (if I don't then someone hit me), but I think it is good that everyone knows the correct way of doing things.

So here goes......briefly....

The scientific name given to an organism is often derived from characteristics of the type specimen. It is always italicized.

It is a binomial name, that is, is it made up of two parts. They are;

a generic name (*genus*) and

a specific epithet (*species*).

e.g. _Tenodera aridofolia_

The scientific name is *always* placed within brackets when it is written after the common name.

e.g. Chinese mantis (_Tenodera aridofolia_)

Once a generic name has been mentioned in a text, it may be abbreviated.

e.g. _T. aridofolia_.

There is sometimes a subspecific name given to an organism. This is then known as a subspecies ! They display minor differences to the original species. This often occurs when members of a species become geographically isolated from the main species. *This does not make them a different species. *

The subspecific name is *always* put after the specific name.

e.g. Chinese mantis (_Tenodera aridofolia sinensis_)

Ok, so that wasn't that brief, but I never was any good at being so !

I hope this helps. Any questions ? Please ask.

Rob.


----------



## Rick (Aug 29, 2006)

Great info. I prefer common names myself.


----------



## Christian (Aug 29, 2006)

The species is called _Tenodera sinensis_ today (formerly _T. arid*i*folia sinensis_).

Regards,

Christian


----------



## Rob Byatt (Aug 30, 2006)

I was wondering if it had changed, but didn't think it had ! When did this happen ?

Rob


----------



## Christian (Aug 30, 2006)

I'm not exactly sure, it was done by a Chinese author about 10-15 years ago. It raised the former subspecies of _T. aridifolia_ to species level, so now there are both _T. aridifolia_ and _T. sinensis_ existing as valid species. A generic revision of _Tenodera_ is still lacking.

Christian


----------



## Rob Byatt (Aug 30, 2006)

Have they been separated because of differences in genitalia ?

Also, have they tried to cross breed the two new species to see if they do not produce viable young ? This would obviously prove they are different species.


----------



## Justin (Aug 30, 2006)

Rob I'm not sure that genetically speaking, the fact that they would not reproduce would strictly mean that they are not related. There has been species crossed that are very different morphologically but in the same genus that have produced viable (although infertile) offspring. An example would be the crossing of geckos in the Rhacodactylus genus R. ciliatus and R. chahoua. So they may be different species and still produce viable offspring.


----------



## Christian (Aug 30, 2006)

Hi.

As I pointed out, I do not have the paper in which the elevation to species level was done, because, at the moment, I do not work with_ Tenodera_. So I do not know which characteristics were used or if the species status of _T. sinensis_ is valid or not. It's just the present state of knowledge. As long as no comparative revision of the genus is undertaken, this point (and the status of other _Tenodera_ species, by the way) cannot be clarified.

This holds for most species-rich genera in Mantodea.

Regards,

Christian


----------



## Rob Byatt (Aug 30, 2006)

Justin,

That was why I said 'viable' offspring - as you said, many species can produce young through interbreeding. But if these offspring cannot produce young themselves they themselves are not are not viable offspring.


----------



## Justin (Aug 30, 2006)

Ah ok, sorry. I misread your meaning there.


----------

