Will the real Devils Flower Mantis please stand up?

Anyone particularly familiar with this species? I got in 3 nymphs referred to as Devils Flower Mantis to the pet store that I work at. I was expecting Idolomantis diabolica, but I am also seeing Blepharopsis mendica referred to as the Devils Flower Mantis. I am going to contact my source, but she is several times removed from the actual breeder so I am not particularly hopeful, there.

Anyone know any hints on how to differentiate these species at the nymph stage?

Here are a few pics;

Yea it's the B M. not the idol

hibiscusmile said:

Yea it's the B M. not the idol

Click to expand...

Darn, I was hoping for the diabolica!!

devil



giant devil



devil



giant devil

Blepheropsis were always commonly known as the thistle mantis and Idolomantis as the African devil flower mantis.

Its getting harder to rely on common names as they can be pulled from the air or misinterpreted so easily, some species of mantis share certain names or aspects of a common name and some species have a few, cant go wrong with the scientific name apart from spelling

In other words [SIZE=18pt]DONT USE COMMON NAMES[/SIZE]

lol, they only allow for ###### ups :lol:

Birdfly said:

cant go wrong with the scientific name apart from spelling

Click to expand...

Except that people also use the wrong scientific name for things as well... :blink:

B.mendica was selling under the name devil's flower mantis before idolomantis simply because it was the only one available and someone apparently liked the name, never heard of thistle mantis and wasn't idolomantis just devil mantis anyway? More importantly if one were any connoisseur of names neither should include flower in their common name since their not Hymenopodidae.

No, this is wrong.

"Flower" is not only applied to members of the Hymenopodidae.

In fact, the common name for Idolomantis diabolica was "devil's flower" for over 110 years. No "devil's flower mantis" no "giant devil's flower", just "devil's flower". The name originates from the fact that in those days the startling display had been mistaken for a flower mimic to attract insects. This is the reason for the name "devil's flower".

90 years later, mantids had been in culture for several decades then and I. diabolica was still not available, some jerk (I know the name of) invented the name "Lesser devil's flower" for B. mendica in order to make them more "sexy" and sell them better. B. mendica is the closest living relative of I. diabolica, nevertheless the name was a rather bad choice, as B. mendica has nothing of a devil's flower. This name was applied to I. diabolica for obvious reasons, all which are lacked by B. mendica, whether closely related or not.

In English speaking countries the story got even worse, as B. mendica was sold there shortly after as "devil's flower mantis", a name that includes two important changes: "Lesser" was ommitted and "mantis" added. I tried several times to explain that the name is wrong, but it was, and still is, like fighting against windmills. Once the name was in the heads of the people, most of which didn't know the history of it or even didn't know I. diabolica as such at that time, the name proved impossible to be wiped out. The real problem arose when we finally managed to establish I. diabolica in stock, and it also became available in England. The real common name "devil's flower" was already wrongly preoccupied by B. mendica and now something of a confusion arose. As the "common name illness" is mostly endemic to English speaking countries (you find a common name for almost everything, one worse than another), it didn't last long until someone introduced "giant" to the common name ("giant" in the common name is always sexy, and sells better) "devil's flower mantis" and so at moment there is the following situation: B. mendica is named "devil's flower mantis" without justification, and Idolomantis diabolica has that unruly "giant" in the common name, instead of being named simply "devil's flower" as it should be.

Well, what can be done? It would be simple, if people took advices. It won't be the first time noone considers what I write, so that part could be named: "everyone gets what he deserves". On the other hand, this is a good example that you just shouldn't use common names at all...

Why bother with those idiotic names? They cause too much confusion - better stick to one name.

Orin said:

Except that people also use the wrong scientific name for things as well... :blink: B.mendica was selling under the name devil's flower mantis before idolomantis simply because it was the only one available and someone apparently liked the name, never heard of thistle mantis and wasn't idolomantis just devil mantis anyway? More importantly if one were any connoisseur of names neither should include flower in their common name since their not Hymenopodidae.

Click to expand...

Well were only human but i think it is still a better way and the likelyhood of a mistake is much less people are mostly put off with pronounciation.

Here in the uk its always been "Thistle mantis" for Blepheropsis i can remember about 20 years ago other names like lesser/devils flower mantis starting to appear with it, some one once described it to me as a "pacer" mantis because of the similarity in the colour of the green & white sweets called pacers ?

The "devil flower" as Christian says was the first common name for Idolomantis that i can remember but even back then people added bits on and what not and soon it was also known as the "African devil flower" (were i've got it from) and so on until Giant clicking devil eyed flower pacer leaf blower mantis...

Flower mantis is a very broad spectrum it doesnt just encompass members of just one Family, the Hymenopodidae! as i understand it it was loosely coined for any mantis that mimicked a flower or could/would use a flower as an ambush point ? which is a lot.

With out going to far of topic, Christian have you got a more precise description of what a "flower" mantis is ?

Well, the term "flower mantis" was, of course, invented by humans and has, in his regular usage, no taxonomic and just a low ecological value. It is applied to those species which mimic a flower and/or use flowers as perch sites - or, more precisely, to those species people think of they should sit on flowers. In fact, it is a rather vague definition, as the usual suspects do well without any flower or blossom if necessary and, on the other hand, some mantids which perch reguarly on flowers are not patterned flower-like. Most animals just don't do the stuff that humans think they have to do.

More accurately, the term applies just to the Hymenopodinae. If used like this, it has some taxonomic value. Nevertheless, "devil's flower" has not the meaning of the actual use of the term "flower mantis". As I stated before, there is no "mantis" contained in "devil's flower". It is of no importance in this respect if the term "flower mantis" is restricted to the Hymenopodinae or not, neither concerning the meaning nor the spelling.

Thanks, thats as much as i understand it

Christian said:

several decades then and I. diabolica was still not available, some jerk (I know the name of) invented the name "Lesser devil's flower" for B. mendica

Click to expand...

It's strange you remember the story that way, the German guy who sold all those B. mendica oothecae was selling them under the wrong scientific name as I.diabolica, reportedly a mistake, and the buyers were pretty unhappy when they found out they didn't have the right animal. The pilfered common name was after the fact.What's your source for the 110 year old devil's flower name?

I imagine you know that technically you can't have a possessive in a common name.

I ommitted that story, but it was the same guy who later even sold B. mendica as I. diabolica. We should not go into further detail, as a forum isn't a good place for such hearsay. But we both know who was meant.

I. diabolica was described 1869 by Saussure. Later, Sharp (1899) launched the story about the flower-mimicking posture and "invented" a new way to catch prey for I. diabolica. The interesting part in that old work was that he never saw a living specimen and just got a dead one sent together with some notes by another observer. The observer described the startling display but obviously didn't recognize is as that what it was - instead Sharp thought after reading the note that the insect assumes this posture in order to catch insects.

This story was the only one known about this species for decades and several authors relied on this article. Even when three authors (Carpenter 1921, Varley 1939 and Burtt 1943) described the real reason for this posture and even noticed the stridulation, the story of the flower mimic rested in literature for a long time. I even found it in an actual Zoology book from 1996. Sometime after 1900 the name "devil's flower" has appeared in his German version (named "Teufelsblume") and was later regularly found in some dictionaries from the 1920ies and 1930ies. I deduced from this chronology that it was not before Sharp's article (who later also worked on an article on G. gongylodes, which resulted from observed specimens in India and, consequently, was better) that the common name devil's flower was used, even though the species was figured in colors before in Westwood's catalogue of 1889. It is not important if the common name was known for exactly 110, 100 or 90 years, it is just important that is has a rather long history lasting about a century.

I have to admit that, although I don't really like common names, most of the first old ones possessed an elegance lacked by most of the ones given nowadays. "Devil's flower", "Wandering Violin" (in German) and "Indian Rose Mantis" (in English), respectively, or "Crowned Mantis" (for H. coronatus) represent a generation of vernicular names which had a story and a reason (even if based on a legend) and a sound/spelling which is not longer found today. For those who worked with mantids and were active before the I-Net age, those names sounded like some distant phantastic idea, like adventure and they set up dreams of those creatures in our heads. Nothing like this is found today - in a time when everyone expects everything for nothing and every creature is degraded to something one can make money with. The respect we had and still have for these creatures may have something to do with our breeding success. However, those times may have been harder with respect of the gain of information, on the other hand most information was first-hand. The internet doesn't really make things easier. People think it does, but in fact you get unfiltered info which is complete bull***t in 80-90% of all cases. The ability to distinguish the one from the other is something that, I fear, is not shared by everyone. Returning to mantids, the only reliable info is still found in journals and books. The internet is, regarding mantids, just a second- and third-hand trash can.

Christian said:

most of the first old ones possessed an elegance lacked by most of the ones given nowadays........represent a generation of vernicular names which had a story and a reason (even if based on a legend) and a sound/spelling which is not longer found today. Nothing like this is found today - in a time when everyone expects everything for nothing and every creature is degraded to something one can make money with. The respect we had and still have for these creatures may have something to do with our breeding success.

Click to expand...

I agree,; common names should be extracted from the scientific name where possible (Latin/Greek influences etc.) and not because some guy that bought it from a breeder thinks it looks like a Giraffe or a boxer

I'm still trying to figure out why Phyllocrania paradoxa is called the Ghost mantis :blink:

Because it blends into the environment and becomes invisible lol XD

Morpheus uk said:

Because it blends into the environment and becomes invisible lol XD

Click to expand...

i saw a mantis for the first time in slovakia on some meadow and at first I thought it was just moving grass

I FIGURED IT OUT!!! The reason why Christian is so smart, is because he's 120 YEARS OLD!!! ]lol

Thanks for the info. I'll try myself to become more familiar with scientific names. I can only remember a few <_< But I'll continue memorizing!

:lol: