Historis odius does not, in fact, represent a hatred of history, nor is it affiliated with negative superstitions, in the way some large dark moths are (at least that I can find). I cannot find any information about how this species was named and now I am so curious. Anyone?
2 Likes
Thereās also a bird species (I forget which one) with a similarly wrong name.
1 Like
Passerculus sandwichensis are truly unappetizing in a sandwich.
(Yes, I know thatās not how they got their specific epithet)
5 Likes
(There was an artist named Rien Poortvliet and when I was young, my father gave me a beautiful book called Dutch Treat that was like his sketchbook of his life, told in small drawings and watercolors coupled with paragraphs of explanation in journal form. And one of them was about how as a child during World War II he was so hungry he would use a slingshot to try to take down any small bird. That sprang to mind.)
1 Like
But Cantherhines sandwichiensis (a filefish) could be quite tasty. Especially as a filet fish.
2 Likes
Homo sapiens which suggests that this ape is endowed with a lot of common sense.
6 Likes
That reminds me of part of John James Audubonās description for the now-extinct Dusky Seaside Sparrow:
Having one day shot a number of these birds, merely for the sake of practice, I had them made into a pie, which, however could not be eaten, on account of its fishy savour.
1 Like
Oh, no!
1 Like
The ācarpsuckersā genus Carpiodes is one that always comes to mind of the taxa I spend time IDing.
Carpiodes = carp-like
A couple of the more common species:
C. carpio = carp-like carp
C. cyprinus = carp-like carp (for some reason both species names mean carp)
So we have a carp-like carp. Is the fish a carp? Nope. Is it even a cyprinid? Nope, different family. Last common ancestor likely some time in the Cretaceous
Is it ācarp-like?ā Sure, if you keep it general, inferior mouth, big scales and a long dorsal fin base. More so with C. caprio than C. cyprinus. C. cyprinus has more dramatic dorsal quill making it much less similar
Even the common name is contradiction - they are suckers, they are not carp. This confusion does cause problems in the US, here Carpsuckers are native and Carp are not
3 Likes
I complained about Erica ericoides.
An erica that looks like an erica. Wow. Amaze.
But it used to be Blaeria ericoides - then the name made sense. Now itās another nice example of It was FIRST so it stays, wrong.
Thatās sad. I wonder how many accounts exist of now-extinct species that were āho-humā occurrences back then. The famous bird extinctions (passenger pigeon, dodo, etc.) are well known but people just going to a spot and casually collecting something that is now super rare or extinct is always sad to read. Especially if they just go to town on them and take a bunch.
Back on topic, the āGreat Purple Hairstreakā was always odd, given it is not purple at all
Iāve often carped about these confusing fish names.
2 Likes
Perhaps Asclepias syrica - did not come from Syria, but rather America.
2 Likes
In the Pythonidae:
Malayopython timoriensis is not found on Timor.
Antaresia perthensis is not found anywhere near to Perth.
3 Likes
I played with something like this a year or two ago
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UB3lggGzqHqQgYOORE2B8bSWIehXqZGt/view?usp=share_link
Numenius madagascarensis
Far-eastern curlew
1 Like
Really? Wikipedia cites two studies (though obviously thatās not a reliable source) that call them bears; the Smithsonian National Zoo website and WWF website also calls them bears. Even iNatās own taxonomy classifies the Giant Panda as belonging to a separate subfamily in the family Ursidae. It may once have been consensus that Giant pandas werenāt bears, but near as I can tell, they are considered bears now.
2 Likes
maybe just not bear bears, you know? like some ducks arenāt ducky ducks
1 Like
I meanā¦ theyāre family Ursidae. Thatās about as bear as it gets.
2 Likes