I didn't intend to get sucked into a vortex of scientific names. The trouble began with photographs of zoo signage, particularly in reptile exhibits. I took pictures of signs as I went along so that I could identify the animals at home when I tagged my photos. Then I deleted the pictures of the signs.
It wasn't long before I started keeping the sign pictures, still with the goal of tagging photos with correct animal names. At first I wanted only the pictures from the signs and the animals' common names. Then I thought I should keep track of scientific names. Two zoos might have the same animal (not the same animal, not at the same time, anyway) labeled with different common names. The scientific name would let me associate different zoos' animals. I can't say this has ever helped, but I'm in the vortex, so...
Here's Varanus salvator from my previous post.
 |
| Asian or common water monitor (Columbus Zoo). Or Khomain's water monitor. |
 |
| Exhibit sign |
I link my posts to pages on zoos' websites, and the Columbus Zoo's site has an entry for Khomain's water monitor, Varanus salvator khomaini. Hmm. Do the sign and website represent the same lizard or different lizards? Is one out-of-date? Has the nomenclature changed? The color patterns around the lizards' mouths are different. Is that normal variation? Does the difference imply different species?
A Web search for Varanus salvator khomaini gives hits for Varanus salvator. But wait! There's this, too:
"Khomaini" gets only a handful of hits and is apparently an incorrect spelling; there's no "h." A three-part scientific name indicates genus, species, and subspecies, and The Reptile Database, which I take to be reliable, says there is a monitor called Varanus salvator salvator. Does Varanus salvator identify the same monitor?
The concept of nominate species seems to be relevant, although I'll be darned if I can understand this definition. Crowd-source sites (Reddit, Yahoo Answers) provide a simple definition: The nominate species is the first species identified, and the assigned subspecies name is the same as the species. In our monitor's case, someone identified Varanus salvator as a new species. Later, subspecies were identified, so Varanus salvator became the nominate species and took the name Varanus salvator salvator. So Varanus salvator and Varanus salvator salvator are likely the same animal. Varanus salvator komaini appears to be a name that is no longer in use.
Then we have this langur.
Two signs, one photo. Same animal? Probably. One sign is outdoors and the other is indoors. I can't say for certain that the two exhibits are physically connected, but I'm pretty sure they are. I would be less flummoxed if the common names were the same or the scientific names were the same.
A search for "Trachypithecus cristatus ultima" yields fewer than 30 hits, so "ultima" appears to be out-of-date. For an example of recently-changed taxonomy, see this Wikipedia article about langurs (lutungs). A zoo's signs can easily become out-of-date. [Also, the hyphen is an abomination, and "leaf" is redundant because all langurs eat leaves. Grammar and punctuation are more of an attractive nuisance than a vortex.]
My conclusion? Taxonomy is complicated.
