# correct way to write azureus



## pamnsam94 (Jun 24, 2008)

Is it Dendrobates tinctorius "Azureus" , Dendrobates tinctorius 'Azureus', Dendrobates tinctorius "azureus" or Dendrobates tinctorius 'azureus'. Please pay attention to whether the "A" in azureus is supposed to be capitalized and whether there shoubld be single or double quotes around azureus. I just want to know if one way is more correct, proper or acceptable when writing an article. Thanks.


----------



## LizardLicker (Aug 17, 2012)

I have not read the description on this animal. However, the genus should be capitalized and the species name is lowercase. The entire name should be italicized. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but azureus refers to a color variation within the species, correct? I don't believe that to be capitalized. However, it wouldn't be my first mistake if I was wrong.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pamnsam94 said:


> Is it Dendrobates tinctorius "Azureus" , Dendrobates tinctorius 'Azureus', Dendrobates tinctorius "azureus" or Dendrobates tinctorius 'azureus'. Please pay attention to whether the "A" in azureus is supposed to be capitalized and whether there shoubld be single or double quotes around azureus. I just want to know if one way is more correct, proper or acceptable when writing an article. Thanks.


While it isn't in the official rules of taxonomic nomenclature, in non-scientific publications, parentheses are sometimes used to point out the old name such as Dendrobates (azureus) tinctorius. If it was a change is genera it can be written as Oophaga (Dendrobates) pumilio, with the capital letter and lower case demonstrating whether the change is between a genus or species designation. 
However it would simple be a lot easier to simple include a sentence that explains the change, and then state for the rest of the article, the frog will be referred to by azureus..... (if you are writing an article for submission to a scientific journal then you have to follow the correct taxonomic designations which would be to list the changes by describer). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Daleo (Jan 31, 2012)

Not trying to derail, but accoring to the care sheet azureus is a separate species, so would it be _Dendrobates azureus_? Or is that outdated?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Daleo said:


> Not trying to derail, but accoring to the care sheet azureus is a separate species, so would it be _Dendrobates azureus_? Or is that outdated?


 
Outdated. The care is the same, but it was reduced to D. tinctorius based on a number of factors including genes.... It is another population of tinctorius. 

Ed


----------



## pamnsam94 (Jun 24, 2008)

Ed said:


> While it isn't in the official rules of taxonomic nomenclature, in non-scientific publications, parentheses are sometimes used to point out the old name such as Dendrobates (azureus) tinctorius. If it was a change is genera it can be written as Oophaga (Dendrobates) pumilio, with the capital letter and lower case demonstrating whether the change is between a genus or species designation.
> However it would simple be a lot easier to simple include a sentence that explains the change, and then state for the rest of the article, the frog will be referred to by azureus..... (if you are writing an article for submission to a scientific journal then you have to follow the correct taxonomic designations which would be to list the changes by describer).
> 
> Some comments
> ...


Since azureus is no longer a valid species, what is the most correct/preferred way to label a photo of one. I don't want to simply put Dendrobates tinctorius because I want the label under the photo to be more specific. So, would Dendrobates tinctorius "Azureus" be the most correct? I think I might have read before that azureus should be capitalized like any locale or morph usually is, but is it more "correct" to use single or double quotes? I know these questions seem trivial to most, but I'm just trying to follow the most accepted rules on the matter, if there are any. Thanks.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Dendrobates tinctorius "azureus" or D.t. azureus.

Richard.


----------



## SmallScaleDan (Nov 16, 2008)

The confusion in the answers you are receiving is coming from the difference between listing a morph, locale, or varietal and listing a name change. 

As Ed mentioned, there are very specific ways to state that a name change has occurred. In this case from _Dendrobates azureus_ to _Dendrobates tinctorius. _


However... this is confusing because the former scientific name has now been adopted as the locale, morph or varietal name. 

What she is asking is: 

When listing the genus, species and varietal or locale... what is the correct format. 

For example: Dendrobates tinctorius "Matecho" 

This is a tricky question. I would say that if it is the name of a place, such as Matecho, you should capitalize it. If it is a description of appearance such as "powder blue" or even "azureus" Which means blue in latin, I would not. 

Another question is this: What does that final name mean to you? Is it a distinction of morph or locality, or is it a subspecies. 
If you consider it a subspecies, then it would be written correctly as such: 

_Dendrobates tinctorius azureus 
_

Some may find that annoying because subspecies aren't recognized as valid by all scientists. (in fact the concept of species by itself is something we argue about all the time)

If you are going to assign the rank of subspecies to some of the tinc locales, there will certainly be some that don't really qualify. Azureus, being distinct enough to be considered a full species for many years would easily fit the distinction of subspecies... if you believe that sort of thing.... but what about some of the cobalts, bakuis etc etc. that are very similar and are found very near one another. 

And further what about the pumilio that are completely sympatric, but we I.D. by color with a "third name" 


I realize I've complicated a simple question, but it's interesting to think about.  

Dan


----------



## pamnsam94 (Jun 24, 2008)

SmallScaleDan said:


> The confusion in the answers you are receiving is coming from the difference between listing a morph, locale, or varietal and listing a name change.
> 
> As Ed mentioned, there are very specific ways to state that a name change has occurred. In this case from _Dendrobates azureus_ to _Dendrobates tinctorius. _
> 
> ...


Is seems as though hobbyists capitalize morphs (e.g. "Powder Blue") often, just as they do locales (e.g. "Matecho"). Of course they will also capitalize things like "El Dorado" simply because it is a proper name (a ficticious city but still representing a locale if I understand correctly). A locale like Oophaga pumilio "Bastimentos" (single or double quotes??) can have multiple morphs (e.g. gold dust). How should that example be written (Oophaga pumilio "Bastimentos" "Gold Dust"??)?? If the tincts known as azureus are from a region without other tincts, or where other tincs are much less abundant, then does that make azureus a locale (even though locales are usually named after a city or region near which those particular frogs are found)? I mostly want to know how taxonomists would label azureus. I may partially be answering my own question when I mention that since no subspecies of D. tinctorius are yet formally recognized (as far as I know anyway), azureus would simply be labeled as Dendrobates tinctorius. However, should they need to communicate with other scientists that they are talking about the blue tinctorius known as azureus, do they then resort to the way hobbyists refer to such frogs? If that is the case, then I should be asking is there a "proper" or most acceptable way to refer to azureus? Should we only capitalize proper nouns (e.g. city/region names etc.) or should all morphs and locales be capitalized, regardless of whether we are using proper nouns? Finally, is it standard to use single or double quotes? I know such things have changed in English grammer, but I don't know if there are accepted rules in taxonomy concerning morphs and/or locales.

Perry


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The technically correct method would not refer to "azureus" in any way shape or form as part of the species designation. It would be Dendrobates tinctorius and if there was a need to specify population then geographic map coordinates or specific locations may be referenced.. See for example An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie. As noted in the supplied reference, the name used was the "accepted common name" of Strawberry Poison Dart Frog and not "Bastimentos" (and note that they didn't break it down into "red frog beach", "cemetary" etc). 

As I noted above, there isn't any accepted convention for what you are attempting to do, and I provided what is probably one of the most frequently seen methods (which doesn't include single or double quote marks). 

Sorry I'm not telling you what you want to hear but that's it... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## pamnsam94 (Jun 24, 2008)

Ed said:


> The technically correct method would not refer to "azureus" in any way shape or form as part of the species designation. It would be Dendrobates tinctorius and if there was a need to specify population then geographic map coordinates or specific locations may be referenced.. See for example An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie. As noted in the supplied reference, the name used was the "accepted common name" of Strawberry Poison Dart Frog and not "Bastimentos" (and note that they didn't break it down into "red frog beach", "cemetary" etc).
> 
> As I noted above, there isn't any accepted convention for what you are attempting to do, and I provided what is probably one of the most frequently seen methods (which doesn't include single or double quote marks).
> 
> ...


Thanks Ed. That helps. So, to conclude, a scientific journal would be most likely to either label a picture of an azureus as simply Dendrobates tinctorius, or they commonly would write it italicized as Dendrobates (azureus) tinctorius, with azureus in parenthesis to indicate that the poplulation formerly was considered a seperate species. Finally, there are no standards, not only for taxonomists, but neither are there any for hobbyists when referring to a specific locale or morph. As hobbyists, we can use either single or double quotes and only need to capitalize proper nouns (e.g. locales named after cities, regions, etc.) per rules of standard English grammer. Otherwise, we can either capitalize or use lower case when referring to specific locales or morphs. In other words, pretty much anything goes, except when writing a species name (genus capitalized and species lowercase and both italicized), correct?

Perry


----------



## pamnsam94 (Jun 24, 2008)

pamnsam94 said:


> Thanks Ed. That helps. So, to conclude, a scientific journal would be most likely to either label a picture of an azureus as simply Dendrobates tinctorius, or they commonly would write it italicized as Dendrobates (azureus) tinctorius, with azureus in parenthesis to indicate that the poplulation formerly was considered a seperate species. Finally, there are no standards, not only for taxonomists, but neither are there any for hobbyists when referring to a specific locale or morph. As hobbyists, we can use either single or double quotes and only need to capitalize proper nouns (e.g. locales named after cities, regions, etc.) per rules of standard English grammer. Otherwise, we can either capitalize or use lower case when referring to specific locales or morphs. In other words, pretty much anything goes, except when writing a species name (genus capitalized and species lowercase and both italicized), correct?
> 
> Perry


Sorry, I should have said that using parenthesis is not standard for taxonomists, but it is an acceptable way for hobbyists or lay people to indicate that the tinctorius population was formerly a separate species (Dendrobates azureus).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The standard for taxonomists is very rigid (and codified). To a taxonomist, azureus would simply be labled Dendrobates tinctorius with no other designation (except for possibly the person who named the species (or a reference to the holotype). What a lot of people don't realize is that many species are described from preserved specimens and coloration of may species across many taxa changes significantly after death and/or preservation. This renders simple coloration differences as questionable for use in designating a species. (if you want to read through the code see International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). 

If you are writing something for a hobbyist publication pretty much anything goes as long as you can make it clear for people to understand. 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## sebou203 (Nov 2, 2011)

if it would be a bacteria, as microbiologist, i'd say:
_Dendrobates tinctorius subsp. azureus_
But since its obviously not a bacteria... it can differ


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

sebou203 said:


> if it would be a bacteria, as microbiologist, i'd say:
> _Dendrobates tinctorius subsp. azureus_
> But since its obviously not a bacteria... it can differ


The reduction from full species to color variation excluded it being a subspecies. 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Ed said:


> The standard for taxonomists is very rigid (and codified). To a taxonomist, azureus would simply be labled Dendrobates tinctorius with no other designation (except for possibly the person who named the species (or a reference to the holotype). What a lot of people don't realize is that many species are described from preserved specimens and coloration of may species across many taxa changes significantly after death and/or preservation. This renders simple coloration differences as questionable for use in designating a species.


I'm confused. If Azureus were reclassified as D. Tinctorious based on genetics, and we don't want to hybridize or cross the various morphs due to their genetics, why don't the various morphs of D. Tinctorious have their own subspecies? Or am I missing something fundamental?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jacobi said:


> I'm confused. If Azureus were reclassified as D. Tinctorious based on genetics, and we don't want to hybridize or cross the various morphs due to their genetics, why don't the various morphs of D. Tinctorious have their own subspecies? Or am I missing something fundamental?


Variations of color and/or even minor differences in size do not automatically warrent the creation or elevation to subspecific status.. There are abundent examples of this in multiple taxa including frogs.. see for example the variations in coloration in Northern Leopard frogs that were at one time raised to suspecific status but on review they were reduced to simple color vatiations (sse for example (although I normally hate using wikipedia, this picture shows multiple color patterns) File:Color Variations of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens).JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and for an even more extensive example, we can look at the pattern variations in rainbow darters which are the same species even though each stream has it's own color variations (even streams that are incrediably close to one another)... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

I think I can answer some of these questions as I do taxonomy in my job. The genus is always capitalized and the species name never is. Both are set off from accompanying text - usually they are italized, but they can be bolded, capitalized, or not italized just so their set off from the accompanying text. If a name is written as _Oophaga (Dendrobates) pumilio_ this implies that _Dendrobates_ is a subgenus in the genus _Oophaga_, which isn't the case. Best not to use anything but the species name after a genus in Dendrobatids. No subspecies of Dendrobatid are recognized and should not be used. Localities or color morph names should be capitalized if they are capitalized normally - like as a locality, not something like 'powder blue.' Single or double quotes are not important in our hobby. In some hobbies they have significance (i.e., in orchids), but we as a group haven't set anything up so they’re meaningless. Use whatever you like, but it would be nice if we standardized such things. 

Best,

Chuck



SmallScaleDan said:


> The confusion in the answers you are receiving is coming from the difference between listing a morph, locale, or varietal and listing a name change.
> 
> As Ed mentioned, there are very specific ways to state that a name change has occurred. In this case from _Dendrobates azureus_ to _Dendrobates tinctorius. _
> 
> ...


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Jake,

There are no subspecies of _Dendrobates tinctorius_ or any other Dendrobatid. Everything after the species name in all Dendrobatids are taxonomic unrecognized groups developed by hobbyist. 

Subspecies in some groups of animals are recognized by scientists and in others and in most cases aren't. With Dendrobatid they aren't recognized. A subspecies is generally accepted as a geographically isolated and distinct form from the nominal species. What to you do if you have two nearly identical morphs from two distinct localities? They aren't subspecies, their just variable frogs within the species. With _Dendroabtes tinctorius_ it is found throughout the Guyana Shield and along the coast of northern South America. They occur in suitable habitat throughout that area, picking out sites with different looking animals only satisfies one of the two things needed to define a subspecies and sometimes not even the one. 


Best,

Chuck



jacobi said:


> I'm confused. If Azureus were reclassified as D. Tinctorious based on genetics, and we don't want to hybridize or cross the various morphs due to their genetics, why don't the various morphs of D. Tinctorious have their own subspecies? Or am I missing something fundamental?


----------

