# Inventory of color polymorphism in populations of Dendrobates galactonotus



## Chris Miller

Interesting new article...

Click here for PDF


----------



## JeremyHuff

Very interesting paper, thanks. It would seem that galacts are back to Dendrobates rather than Adelphobates.


----------



## jeosbo01

Very interesting indeed! Thanks for posting it.


----------



## epiphytes etc.

JeremyHuff said:


> Very interesting paper, thanks. It would seem that galacts are back to Dendrobates rather than Adelphobates.


Apparently, so. My first thought was that they were just using old taxonomy, but they do refer to castaneoticus as Adelphobates. I never did think they sat well in either genus.


----------



## Afemoralis

epiphytes etc. said:


> Apparently, so. My first thought was that they were just using old taxonomy, but they do refer to castaneoticus as Adelphobates. I never did think they sat well in either genus.


The authors are both heavy-hitters in Brazilian herpetology, so best to take their opinions seriously, but I would point out that they are being extremely conservative in their taxonomy. I'm unclear if this would be sufficient to 'move' galactonotus back to Dendrobates according to the code. Most taxonomic shifts boil down to consensus- and if nothing else, this paper is saying that the vote is still out on the placement of galactonotus. 

It is also apparent that the samples, and methods, exist to answer the question raised by the authors of this paper on a genetic basis. Just takes someone to step up and do the study.


----------



## ETwomey

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into them referring to galactonotus as Dendrobates. They didn't actually analyze any new data. It seems pretty clear to me that they are subjectively assigning galactonotus to Dendrobates on basis of body size (as many people have done previously) and completely ignoring all the molecular data that suggests close affinity with castaneoticus and quinquevittatus. 

Furthermore, it makes no sense to refer to galactonotus as Dendrobates while also recognizing Adelphobates for quinquevittatus and castaneoticus, when there is no data I'm aware of that suggests this relationship. Either you have to refer to everything as Dendrobates (including Oophaga and Minyobates), or you have to refer to all three species as Adelphobates. You can't cherry pick which species get which genus name because of your feelings. If they want to convince anybody, then they have to do it with data, not verbal arguments.


----------



## Shockfrog

I spoke to one of the article's reviewers. He suggested to use Grant's taxonomy, but the authors were not convinced to do so.


----------



## Gocubs

There are some sexy frogs in that article


----------

