# Why dont we call D.pumilio, O.pumilio? I propose...



## booboo (Jan 22, 2005)

Well I have been looking for an intern or other similar program to work with down in South America. I haven’t decided on one yet but with much of my research I have been quite familiar and prefer the term Oophaga for the obligatory egg feeder group. I know Europe has been calling the group Oophaga for a while now, and If it is widely accepted I wonder if we to as a dart frog community should switch over to the term Oophaga for the egg feeders.

Especially with pumilio, their egg feeding characterizes them separately from the other dendrobates and I personally think it would be a smart move. This would also require us to change histrionicus granuliferus and others to Oophaga as well. Unless I am missing something of importance as to why not to change the name... what do you guys/girls think, good idea bad idea?


----------



## Onagro (Jun 9, 2006)

This is probably a good idea. It seems like scientist just used the genus of dendrobates to lump all dendrobatids together. If the new genus has been accepted around the world, why has the US been left out?


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

See this thread for the discussion surrounding that paper: http://dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19208

Bill's post on the fourth page would likely be the reason you don't hear these names in the states:


elmoisfive said:


> I think it's important to keep the perspective that this is one publication from one group of scientists and until thoroughly reviewed and validated (in this case agreed to I suppose) by the broader scientific community, it's a scientific communication and proposal, nothing more.
> 
> A key feature in science is independent verification. Something that I suspect will be a few years in coming.
> 
> Bill


Has anyone in the know heard anything about the status of the acceptance of this paper?

If you would like to read the paper (the primary link is dead), Kyle has hosted it and its link appears on the last page. It's a 119 meg file.


----------



## Onagro (Jun 9, 2006)

Taxonomic revisions are always controversial. It may seem irritating with frogs, but try checking how many times megalosaurus was used as a genus dump for poorly understood dinos. (sorry for the paleo-rant)

Thanks for the link, the paper will be interesting!


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

Several of the proposed name changes are sketchy from a taxonomic viewpoint, as hit on by the thread above. By all means, read the paper and come to your own conclusions- but I also urge you to try to find the original publication of the name "Oophaga". The rules regarding name precedence are resonably specific, but the distinction between publically published information, and reviewed literature is unclear. I personally don't buy into the validity of 'Oophaga' as a name, and the distinctions between the subgroups within Dendrobates. Defining a genus on the basis of a behavior such as egg feeding- notoriously plastic- seems poorly thought out- no matter how cool that behavior is.

Cheers,

Afemoralis


----------



## NathalieB (Apr 23, 2007)

Hello,

just to let you know that the majority of people and organizations in Belgium and the Netherlands are still using the old names until a more definitive and generally accepted taxonomy is presented. It is clear to everybody that the current taxonomy cannot count on general consensus and a lot of adjustments will have to be made to correct some major flaws.
I would not say the new names are accepted here in Europe, but they are already being used by some people.

I personally prefer to stick to the old names as long as there isn’t a clear taxonomy that is accepted internationally. Using some names and then having to change them once again makes it only more confusing. You’ll end up with frogs being called 10 different names by 10 different people, like you see in the orchid world, because there will always be stubborn people sticking to the names they first learned.
I think we already have a hard enough time distinguishing between all the different morphs

kind regards,
Nathalie


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

When we started the care sheets we looked at the options and went with the hobby standard. Some countries or hobbiest choose to stick with the old names and some have gone with the latest. My take on it is that it may take some more research and another paper or so to prove the new naming. After some more acceptance it may start to work its way into the hobby. For now the list here is the accepted hobby names:
http://dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18038


----------



## booboo (Jan 22, 2005)

It seemed appropraite to me because with the eggfeeders, their anatomy is different than those of other dendros. You know how the tadpoles have sack like stomachs oposed to spiraled so they can only digest egg proetins oposed to plant material and whatnot. It just makes sense to group them as Oophaga because of the oophagy needed to raise the tads. Plus with all the recent pum imports ir helps seperate them, however I understand (somewhat... :lol: ) why they remain to be called dendrobates.


----------



## NathalieB (Apr 23, 2007)

I agree with you that the new taxonomy does make sense (specially the oophaga part) but I don't think you can adopt just pieces of the new taxonomy. to keep it simple I think it's all or nothing, and as for a lot of people "all" is not an option they can live with it's just "nothing" for the moment.

I am sure however that the new taxonomy will be adjusted and corrected and will be adopted by the community.

so we will be calling them oophaga pumilio in some time, but I don't see how it will make it simpeler to seperate them because the difference between a tinctorius and a pumilio is already very clear, although they are both called dendrobates. the problem is the difference between (for example) an esperanza and a darkland frog: are they variations in the same morph, are they differnt morphs? should they be mixed... that will remain difficult, even when they're called oophaga


----------



## booboo (Jan 22, 2005)

Thats a bit of a different story, Then we need people down in South America taking photos of frogs and mthcing them with their locale and then deciding on an appropriate name.

I guess we can stick with dendrobates for now... :lol:


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

First, I present and article that helped me understand the break down a little better and why some scientists are finding it hard to swallow... Dendrobates.org - Dendrobatid systematics.

There are some great reclassifications, and then there are some that make you want to bang your head on a wall - assuming you are very familiar with taxonomy, Dendrobatids, and genetics. For the average hobbyest, this is not just above their heads, it's in the atmostphere. My recommendation... let the scientists fight it out, and wait for the scientists attached to the hobby, like dendrobates.org, tell is when it's sorted out 

There will probably be a number of other papers out over the next couple years examining bits and peices in more, and/or better detail and sorting it out.

Yes, there are physiological differences between some of the Dendrobates tadpoles... but this is not something that alone would validate a new genus. This does not take into account most of the other variables that go into what makes a species or genus. Physiological similarities and differences have led taxonomists to make distinctions that, in some cases, have proven to be rather incorrect when genetics was tossed into the mix. Dendrobatids especially can be troublesome, there is a lot of mimicry, convergent evolution, etc going on within the family. Egg feeding itself has developed two seperate times in the family... just because they became highly adapted to certain niches doesn't make them any less genetically related to their less adapted cousins...

Subspecies are generally not used with Dendrobatids, and populations themselves can be troublesome. While some are clearly deliniated, most are not. What we see is a fractured bit of gradual variation and change across a population, where traits (size, color, pattern) can be repeated in a population of that species that are very far apart, and much less related than their looks would make us think. "Cobalt" type tincs show up repeatidly all over the species' range, so to blue, red, and green pumilio across their range. We need to keep up with locality info with our frogs, yes, but changing what genus they are in isn't going to help that. That's our own record keeping.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Though I don't have any issue with Evan or Jason Lee, I do take issue with that article (which doesn't absolve the Grant, Et al Taxonomy of any issues it may have). 

On point one (quibble), Adelphobates may not have any novel distinguishing characteristics, but I don't think many people doubt that it forms a valid clade (based on the developed phylogeny tree), if Jason & Evan (or Dr. Summers) dispute that it is a valid clade, they don't give us any evidence of that. If it is a valid clade, the only choice is to either give it its own genus, or assign it to a different genus with which it forms a clade, which doesn't work on the tree they have (though they could have redifined Oophaga with different characteristics, given it a different name, http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/posti ... t=28521and included the Adelphobates species therin).

Points two and three, which have the same complaint applied to two different taxa, are just scientific elitism. Amatuer biologists have done an enormous amount of work in taxonomy in a lot of areas, and the ICZN rules reflect this. The bar to publication in peer reviewed journals is absurdly high, and has little to do with the quality or validity of the work performed (cost is the biggest issue, and editor's selection of "what's important or not" is second). If their issue is with Bauer's taxa which "Barely meet the ICZN rules," they have a problem with the ICZN rules (as barely meets the minimum criteria, means that it meets the criteria), which Grant et al merely follow. 

I don't have any issue with point four. Though it is mainly an issue of their preference of data sorting algorithm (I would be interested in seeing a tree generated with their preferred method using the Grant data).

To me, their primary problem seems to be the old Lumpers vs Splitters debate, with Jason & Evan (and, I presume, Dr. Summers) coming down on the side of the lumpers. While I tend to be on the side of the lumpers in general, I recognize that splitters seem to be in the ascendant at present in the world of taxonomy, and I feel that with the influential AMNH on their side, the Grant et al taxonomy is likely to prevail (if only through sheer inertia, as AMNH publications have already accepted it as the de facto standard, and other sources with no stake in the matter are likely to adopt it simply because AMNH sources have), unless some major problems with the scientific validity of the taxonomy tree are presented. If Jason, Evan, et al (or others) have raised any other scientific arguments (other than "We're Lumpers and We Don't Like All This Splitting") I would be interested in reading that, as well (like any other publications or letters presenting problems).


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Lets just wait a couple years for the papers, toss them into a ring, sell tickets, and watch them fight it out 

It also doesn't help that this is still a relatively new and developing application for taxonomy...


----------

