Reptile & Amphibian Forums

OK,

I’m confuzzed, please enlighten me. I am but a humble Naval Officer and hobbyist. I am not a biologist, herpetologist or taxonomist. However, I see the utilization of “ssp” which I use (In Drymarchon corais references), and “spp” that others use with apparent facility referencing the same subject. It appears that I may be ignorant in the correct way to abbreviate my subject.

To my way of thinking, a reference to Drymarchon corais (ssp) is a reference to the entire tree below D. c. including D. c. corais, melanarus, rubidus, errebennus, et. al. Whereas “spp” is a reference to species that takes us up the tree a notch or two...

I personally accept D. couperi in accordance with W.W.’s supposition. But then again, who am I?

Forgive my ignorance, and help me say what I mean to say when I feel the need. I am a closet wordsmith, I wish to be correct and accurate.

Thanks and Regards,
Jeff Nichols

>>OK,
>>
>>I’m confuzzed, please enlighten me. I am but a humble Naval Officer and hobbyist. I am not a biologist, herpetologist or taxonomist. However, I see the utilization of “ssp” which I use (In Drymarchon corais references), and “spp” that others use with apparent facility referencing the same subject. It appears that I may be ignorant in the correct way to abbreviate my subject.
>>
>>To my way of thinking, a reference to Drymarchon corais (ssp) is a reference to the entire tree below D. c. including D. c. corais, melanarus, rubidus, errebennus, et. al. Whereas “spp” is a reference to species that takes us up the tree a notch or two...
>>
>>I personally accept D. couperi in accordance with W.W.’s supposition. But then again, who am I?
>>
>>Forgive my ignorance, and help me say what I mean to say when I feel the need. I am a closet wordsmith, I wish to be correct and accurate.
>>
>>Thanks and Regards,
>>Jeff Nichols

Jeff,
ssp. is "subspecies" and sp. or spp. is "species". So, if you write Drymarchon melanurus ssp., then you are speaking of the subspecies of D.melanurus in general. If you say Drymarchon sp or Drymarchon spp. then you are speaking of the genus Drymarchon in general. Since some of these critters were formerly under the species Drymarchon corais, there may be some confusion. So, you may occasionally see something like Drymarchon melanurus rubidus(sp. nov) or maybe Drymarchon melanurus rubidus(sp. nov Wuster). The (sp. nov) means "species nova" or "new species".

One or two other things...when writing scientific names, you should italicize the name, or if that's not possible, underline it. The genus name should be capitalized, the species and subspecies (if it's a trinomial) should not be captialized. After a name has been mentioned in the text, it's ok to abbreviate the genus and species names. So, if this text were to continue, I could just use D.m.rubidus. However, if you are going to use the abbreviation "ssp.", you wouldn't want to abbreviate the species name and if you are going to use the abbreviation spp. or sp., you wouldn't want to abbreviate the genus name.

Does that help any?
>>
>>
>>

-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

My head hurts...

Regards,
J.

...and yes it does help.

Just kinda intricate. A lot of stuff to keep rolling around in your head if you want to be conversant.

I guess over time it becomes second nature...

Regards,
J.

well done O.H. if that doesn't get jeff out of the wordsmith closet, i don't know if he'll ever emerge.

curious, isn't it "species novum" the singular form?

matt

>>well done O.H. if that doesn't get jeff out of the wordsmith closet, i don't know if he'll ever emerge.
>>
>>curious, isn't it "species novum" the singular form?
>>
>>matt

Hi Matt!

Well, as WW pointed out, my example wasn't the best in the world. It really should have been "comb. nov." for new combination since it wasn't a new species, but just a subspecies reassigned to a previously existing species within the same genus.
To illustrate "sp. nov.", I should have used Drymarchon caudomaculatus (sp. nov.), because that was, in fact, a new species within that genus.

The only point that I'm not clear on is if you assign what was previously a subspecific naming to species status (a status elevation, such as in D. couperi. Is that then considered a new species, since it was not a species before? I understand that couperi is probably not a good example since it was used for the very same animal as a species name under Coluber couperi in a now obsolete taxon. But had that name never been previously assigned as a species, but had been used as a subspecies name, would it then be considered a new species? I don't think I've ever seen it done...just wondering.
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

>>>>well done O.H. if that doesn't get jeff out of the wordsmith closet, i don't know if he'll ever emerge.
>>>>
>>>>curious, isn't it "species novum" the singular form?
>>>>
>>>>matt
>>
>>Hi Matt!
>>
>>Well, as WW pointed out, my example wasn't the best in the world. It really should have been "comb. nov." for new combination since it wasn't a new species, but just a subspecies reassigned to a previously existing species within the same genus.
>>To illustrate "sp. nov.", I should have used Drymarchon caudomaculatus (sp. nov.), because that was, in fact, a new species within that genus.
>>
>>The only point that I'm not clear on is if you assign what was previously a subspecific naming to species status (a status elevation, such as in D. couperi. Is that then considered a new species, since it was not a species before? I understand that couperi is probably not a good example since it was used for the very same animal as a species name under Coluber couperi in a now obsolete taxon. But had that name never been previously assigned as a species, but had been used as a subspecies name, would it then be considered a new species? I don't think I've ever seen it done...just wondering.
>>-----
>>We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

>>Jeff,
>>ssp. is "subspecies" and sp. or spp. is "species". So, if you write Drymarchon melanurus ssp., then you are speaking of the subspecies of D.melanurus in general. If you say Drymarchon sp or Drymarchon spp. then you are speaking of the genus Drymarchon in general. Since some of these critters were formerly under the species Drymarchon corais, there may be some confusion. So, you may occasionally see something like Drymarchon melanurus rubidus(sp. nov) or maybe Drymarchon melanurus rubidus(sp. nov Wuster). The (sp. nov) means "species nova" or "new species".

G'day oldherper,

A few alterations to what was a good post (hope you don't mind ):

Abbreviations such as sp., spp., or ssp. are most often used if one is not exactly sure what one is dealing with. For instance, if you have a Drymarchon melanurus, but you don't know which subspecies, then you might label a photo "Drymarchon melanurus ssp." Ditto for "Drymarchon sp." if you are unsure of the species.

The abbreviations "sp. nov.", "sp. n." or "ssp. nov." are **only, ever** used in the publication where the taxon is first described as new, not later, even if it is reallocated. So in my Drymarchon paper, I used "Drymarchon caudomaculatus sp. nov.", since I was describing that taxon as new to science. However, no other paper after that should use "sp. nov." in conjunction with D. caudomaculatus afterwards. Similarly, Drymarchon melanurus was only a new combination (since melanurus was previously regarded as a ssp. of D. corais), not a new taxon, as it had been described in 1854 by Bibron et al. Some authors use the abbreviations "comb. nov." when forming a new genus-species name combination, but never sp. nov. or ssp. nov.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

And, of course....you are absolutely correct, as usual.
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Here are a couple more of those you may see from time to time:

fam nov. (familia nova, or new family)
ord. nov (ordo novus, or new order)
nom. nov. (nomen novum, or new name)
gen. nov. (genus novum, or new genus)
subclass. nov (subclassis novum, or new subclass)
etc., etc....
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

with duct tape to prevent explosion before I print out this thread and study it a little bit.

What I'm really learning here is that an attempt at accuracy by the novice may well result in riotous laughter from those who do this stuff professionally or semi-professionally.

Regards,
Jeff

Nah, I don't think anyone would laugh..at least not riotously.

I think everyone understands that Taxonomy is an enormously complicated thing, especially for those with no training or experience with it. It is a fairly simple system of classification, in and of itself, but there's a lot to it. Especially when you figure in the inconsistencies that are bound to result from any human endeavor, the changes that take place almost on a daily basis, and the disagreements even amongst experts....plus the fact that it's primarilay based on a "dead" foriegn language (there IS a good reason fot that, though).

With all that in mind, I think that any attempt to learn and use it is actually appreciated.

It would probably be easier for us English speakers if it were based on English. Agkistrodon piscivorous would become "hook-toothed fish-eater", Drymarchon corais would become "dark chief of the forest", Pituophis melanoleucus would become "black and white pine snake"...etc., but imagine how we would sound talking like that. Plus if take the case of the Pine Snake, what if you were speaking of a Black Pine Snake? Then it would be "black and white pine snake named for H.P.Loding", which would not be accurate at all, because it's not really black and white. The whole idea of the system is accuracy. We want names that we can use that mean the same for everyone so that when we mention a specific name the person we're speaking to knows exactly which animal we're speaking of. So, in reality, we would probably have completely different English names for them...such as Cottonmouth, Northern Pine Snake, Yellowtail Cribo...Oh...wait a minute....
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

heys guys- i thought while the subject was still out there I'd ask you where the best place would be to veiw taxonomy charts- this thread has helped me realize how little i do know about the classifications.
Reptiles Magazine had a chart a few issues back, but i'm looking for something with more content (the greater picture). Any thoughts??
Thanks!
Patrick