Identifying Cryptic Species

General
, ,
1

Ok, I know this has been discussed before, but I have a question regarding a specific instance of cryptic/complicated taxonomy. I’ll try to explain it as best I can so those not familiar with the taxon can get the full picture.

Davus Pentaloris is a a species of Tarantula native to central america, and found in many separate locales. Until recently, it was understood to be one species, but in 2020 (if I recall correctly) a paper was published in which specimens collected from different locations were examined. The authors of the paper concluded that the specimens examined likely represented 13 different species in the complex, 12 of which were new to science. None of these species have been officially proposed, although the authors did state their intent at the end of the paper to describe them in the future.

So, recently I got into a discussion/debate with another user regarding the protocol of the identification of the species Davus Pentaloris. This user was very (rightfully) confused as to why some specimens of this species were left at tribe level and some were identified as D. Pentaloris. I tried to explain the situation as best I could.

Truthfully, I’ve been following what other, more experienced Identifiers of this taxa have been doing. I’m not a scientist and I generally try to defer to experts whenever I can. For the record, this other user is a scientist and has published papers on other families of spiders, so I don’t want to downplay their expertise in this topic either.

This user pointed out that since none of the species discussed in the 2020 paper have been officially proposed, let alone described, it makes no sense to not simply describe all observations of the complex as D. Pentaloris and wait for the new species to be described. What I’ve seen from other identifiers is generally to leave all complex D. Pentaloris from Mexico at tribe level but to ID the ones from other countries (Guatemala, El Salvador) as D. Pentaloris. User pointed out this doesn’t make sense if all D. Pentaloris are actually this new genus. I’m at a loss for what to tell them because I actually do agree with them, I’ve just been following what seemed to be the norm.

Complicated situation, I know. What do you guys think? I’ll link the paper below just in case anyone wants to take a look at it.

Another stripe on the tiger makes no difference? Unexpected diversity in the widespread tiger tarantula Davus pentaloris (Araneae: Theraphosidae: Theraphosinae)

1 Like
What would you ID when species taxonomic heirarchy is wrong?
2

That’s what I would do. You can’t predict if or when the taxonomy will be revised and new species described. So go with the current taxonomy. You could add a note to your ID that this taxonomy might change in the future and link to the paper predicting such.

17 Likes
3

Would the new species all still be in the same complex or would some be in a new genus? It seems strange to me that identical-looking individuals would be separated into a whole new genus.

Either way I agree that the current taxonomy should be used. If the species is split on iNat then all of the relevant observations will automatically be elevated to genus/tribe anyways.

4 Likes
4

It’s not that unusual for a researcher to identify lots of undescribed genomic diversity within a named species but then never get around to formally describing the one or more new species.

6 Likes
5

I would agree that sticking to species IDs is best. That is the current taxonomy (which is always what we have to work with), and then new IDs may be able to be automatically updated later with a taxon split. I’ve also seen instances where people “identify” dozens of new species that were never described and don’t end up being legit.

4 Likes
6

Not an answer to your question, but a grammatical note that I’m always pointing out to my students – the species name should be Davus pentaloris, or D. pentaloris – in both cases, the specific epithet isn’t capitalized. (Autocorrect tends not to like the abbreviation, with that period in there….)

6 Likes
7

I believe 12 new species and the 1 currently described species would be moved to their own genus, but not sure.

8

And let’s not forget the obligatory italicization! ;-)

1 Like