# Why the reclassification to Oophaga?



## skips (Dec 15, 2008)

Is this a fairly recent reclassification of species from some dendrobatids to oophaga? Why? Was there some new DNA or morphological data that came out or was it just that they wanted to separate the obligate egg eaters? Any body know?


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

Yeah i think that had to do with egg-feeding frogs


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

There are a variety of reasons for the reclassification of the family, not just Oophaga. The primary reason for the reclassification is genetics, although the behavior and morphology of the animals also plays a role. Dendrobates was a trashbasket genus where pretty much any brightly colored dendrobatid would be thrown into it. While I do not agree with all of the changes (for instance, making Aromabatidae a full family), a lot of the changes were necessary and needed.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Some discussion..

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...nsidering-whether-adopt-new-nomenclature.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/27616-new-proposed-classification.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/14203-new-systematic.html

Be sure to check out the paper too.


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

I was just trying to answer the Oophaga question - so are the egg feeders really that different genetically?


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

ChrisK said:


> I was just trying to answer the Oophaga question - so are the egg feeders really that different genetically?


From my own absolutely non-scientific viewpoint....probably, yes.

I think it has been a long time coming (the reclassification), especially from a scientific taxonomy standpoint.

Besides, all those Herpetologists and Biologists who get paid to watch frogs need to justify their grants and subsides......


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

If your interested in the phylogenetic tree.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Awesome chart post!

Now the question is, why do all the Europeans produce all the cool charts, diagrams and books?


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> Now the question is, why do all the Europeans produce all the cool charts, diagrams and books?


I think Mark's top picture is from dendrobates.org (Americans, for the most part) but I can't seem to find it on their site anymore so he can correct me if I'm wrong (it may have been pulled to get remade since it's using the other taxonomy classification)..


----------



## bobberly1 (Jul 16, 2008)

This always happens with these ever expanding genuses. Anyone else here familiar with the genus Cichlasoma?


----------



## skips (Dec 15, 2008)

markbudde said:


> If your interested in the phylogenetic tree.


Haha, wow. That can't possibly be the most parsimonious tree. I had no idea there were so many actually taxonomic subclassifications before, aside from everybody liking to find new morphs of the same species.


----------



## skips (Dec 15, 2008)

Corpus Callosum-Thanks for the articles. I’ll read them tonight.

MonarchzMan-Thanks for the insight. Actually, you posted on another thread and it was your signature that prompted the question. How did you did you get yourself to get paid to study dart frogs? Best job every.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Haha, well, it's the most parsimonious tree depending on what evidence you look at (there's a phylogenetic tree out of pumilio by Prohl in 2007, and one that just came out a couple months ago, both looking at genetic data, and they're different from one another). One thing you have to understand about taxonomists, they need to publish papers, and in order to do so, they'll scramble the current taxonomy. I'd bet in the next few years, the current taxonomy changes again.

As for being paid to study dendrobatids, not yet, lol. One day, I will be, though, assuming the plans work out! I'm doing my thesis work on pumilio. I'm thinking I'll look at the eggfeeders (likely just Central American given how Colombia's political system is right now) for my dissertation. I'd say mimicry in non-obligate eggfeeders, but given how Summers' lab is established in Peru, I wouldn't want to encroach on that territory.


----------



## skips (Dec 15, 2008)

MonarchzMan said:


> Haha, well, it's the most parsimonious tree depending on what evidence you look at (there's a phylogenetic tree out of pumilio by Prohl in 2007, and one that just came out a couple months ago, both looking at genetic data, and they're different from one another). One thing you have to understand about taxonomists, they need to publish papers, and in order to do so, they'll scramble the current taxonomy. I'd bet in the next few years, the current taxonomy changes again.
> 
> As for being paid to study dendrobatids, not yet, lol. One day, I will be, though, assuming the plans work out! I'm doing my thesis work on pumilio. I'm thinking I'll look at the eggfeeders (likely just Central American given how Colombia's political system is right now) for my dissertation. I'd say mimicry in non-obligate eggfeeders, but given how Summers' lab is established in Peru, I wouldn't want to encroach on that territory.


Good luck with your dissertation then. Still, best job ever. I will look into the paper you mentioned, seems interesting. Pardon my french, but amphibians just seem like such a <redacted, Catfur> for DNA markers being used for phylogenic purposes. Like you said, two groups, similar data, extremely variable conclusions. In salamanders you have polyploidys, in frogs you have hybrids, morphs. There's genomes are just so plastic compared to ours it makes the human genome project look like a 50 peace puzzle.


----------

