# Confusion on the changes in taxonomy within dendrobates



## naja_naja (Sep 8, 2006)

Who are these taxonomists that have proposed all these new classifactions of the dendrobates genus and why was there some kind of new found genetic information that lead to the proposed new classifications. And for that matter are any of these changes official yet? because not many people seem to use the new names and what not so please someone please water this down as to why the dendrobates genus is being split into so many monophylectic groups is it just a bunch of little douche bags that want their name known or what cuz its pissing me off thanks for your answers!


----------



## ian (Dec 25, 2006)

Yeah I was just wondering about that. I was cruisin through some new pics and retics or fants are now R. Fantasticus? (I can't remember which frog it was but I know it wasn't dendrobates anymore). Please clarify for those in the dark like me.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

This thread sheds some light on some of your concerns (see pages 2 & 3):

http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34395


----------



## ian (Dec 25, 2006)

Thanks for that. I remember that thread now. I last saw it when there was only one page.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Also check the frognet archives for the past couple weeks. Some interesting information about the origin of "Ranitomeya" on that thread.


----------



## MonopolyBag (Jun 3, 2007)

naja_naja said:


> Who are these taxonomists that have proposed all these new classifactions of the dendrobates genus and why was there some kind of new found genetic information that lead to the proposed new classifications. And for that matter are any of these changes official yet? because not many people seem to use the new names and what not so please someone please water this down as to why the dendrobates genus is being split into so many monophylectic groups is it just a bunch of little douche bags that want their name known or what cuz its pissing me off thanks for your answers!



Their name will not be known, because someone can not name a species after them, but they CAN name it after someone else. I think as we further learn more about animals, we will continue to adjust things as technologie increases, there are small differences we may over look and later find and it could actually be a big enough difference to reconsider how related one organism may be to another.

Lately on Discovery channel I have been watching, either 2 or 3 show on dinasaurs, maybe more, and how they classify them, and also how they relate to modern reptiles and even birds. Many MANY people dissagree, very knowledgable people, some of which I myself will dissagree with, with my little knowledge I know, I even think some may be wrong. I easily see how we continue to change scientific names, and this is confusing, but that is why animals ALSO have common names, which often do not change, but can also become confusing. But we must change the scientific names to prevent future confusion and proper classification.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Actually, once you get beyond the initial hurdle of just flat out learning new names (after having used the 'old' ones for so long), I feel they are actually much more helpful in understanding the frog you are talking about and the various other species it has been grouped with in a particular genera.

For instance, Ranitomeya are basically all the thumbnail species we deal with, frogs like imitator, reticulata, ventrimaculata, lamasi, etc.

Oophaga are frogs that exhibit obligate egg-feeding tendencies, such as pumilio, granulifera and histrionicus.

Ameerega is mostly what we previously called Epipedobates (trivittata, pongoensis, cainarachi, bassleri, etc.).

Phyllobates is still the same: terribilis, bicolor, vittatus, lugubris, aurotaenia.

Epipedobates is pretty much relegated to tricolor and anthonyi.

And Dendrobates consists of tinctorius, truncatus, auratus, and leucomelas...which now makes a lot more sense when you look at it.

I much prefer this system over referring to just about everything as Dendrobates "X" and then having to differentiate it as a "tinc-type" frog or a "quinq-type" frog, etc. Now you hear the name and you know.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

What I dont understand less then the idea of the name changes are people who have ZERO scientific backgound or a very small one and for some reason think that they have a problem with the new names. What is the basis for these peoples complaints. Is it that they have been keeping frogs for two or three years and a D.reticulatis has been a D.reticulatis for all that time and there is no way there could ever be anything else. Just because you keep dart frogs in a tank and called them one name for years doesnt mean you have a valid point on weather they should really be called that.

There are lots of things that need to be looked into more with all aspects of animal ecology natural histroy and biology! There just isnt always the time and money and the right people to look into everything. And as time passes we gain acces to better practices and technology to look deeper into many things then that people did years ago when many of the old ways were set in practice ( mabey like the old Amphibian names) I am not sayign that these new names are 100% right but I really have no leg to stand on ot even begin to question these men.


----------

