# New name for common pumilio???



## rcteem

Can anyone tell me if it has been conformed that O. Pumilio 'Blue Jeans' had been changed to Oophaga Typographa??? Havent heard an update on this in a while.


----------



## rcteem

Any info would be great!!!


----------



## stemcellular

http://www.dendrobase.de/index.php?gattung=Oophaga&art=species02&id=12220


----------



## Julio

when did this normanclature change?


----------



## JJuchems

Thank God for google translate.


----------



## sbreland

For the German's it's been that way for quite a while (3 or 4 years) but I don't think that we've quite adopted that yet. Kinda like where they were using "Ranitomeya" and other newer nomenclature while we were still calling everything "Dendrobates". It's probably more correct in the scientific sense but I'd bet only 2 or 3 out of 10 people here in the US would have any idea what a "typographa" is.

And on a side note, if you've never really looked around on the dendrobase website it's truly worth the time... one of the best informational sites and has some good habitat pics and other good info and if your German is a bit rusty, yeah, google translate seems to work pretty well, LOL!


----------



## JimO

So, does this mean that if someone misidentifies a pumilio for a blue jeans that they are committing a typographical error?


----------



## james67

as rich commented, there has been a trend in splitting and typographica along with "species escudo" have been separated for awhile due to some differences in the frogs themselves. the animals in this case are MUCH more widely distributed (with much less variation) than the bocas pumilio.

james


----------



## uncle tom

Hi folks,
we don't use the name Oophaga typographa for the blue jeans in Germany. Only at the website www.dendrobase we use the name O. cf. typographa for the nothern populations of O. pumilio. The abreviation "cf." comes from the latin confere. So we only want to say that there is a name avaiable for the O. pu,ilio populations that differ in morphology, call and genetics. But with O. ignita there is also another younger synonym avaiable for the nothern O. pumilio populations. Further investigations should confirm if the nothern populations are really represent a seperate specie and wich name is valid. Newest phylogeographic investigations makes it all more complicated because they discussing the possibility that O. vicentei and O. arborea are maybe only populations of O. pumilio: Hauswaldt et al. 2010: Widespread co-occurrence of divergent mitochondrial haplotype lineages in a Central American species of poison frog (Oophaga pumilio). Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.)

Saludos from Germany

Thomas Ostrowski


----------



## Chris Miller

uncle tom said:


> Newest phylogeographic investigations makes it all more complicated because they discussing the possibility that O. vicentei and O. arborea are maybe only populations of O. pumilio:


Given the current state of affairs in Panama, that could be really sad for arborea if they are as troubled as people say they are. Of course Panama would have to recognize the new nomenclature, but still...


----------



## edwardsatc

uncle tom said:


> Newest phylogeographic investigations makes it all more complicated because they discussing the possibility that O. vicentei and O. arborea are maybe only populations of O. pumilio: Hauswaldt et al. 2010: Widespread co-occurrence of divergent mitochondrial haplotype lineages in a Central American species of poison frog (Oophaga pumilio). Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.)


Thanks for the citation Thomas. Interesting paper.


----------



## thedude

Chris Miller said:


> Given the current state of affairs in Panama, that could be really sad for arborea if they are as troubled as people say they are. Of course Panama would have to recognize the new nomenclature, but still...


thats what i was thinking. and vicentei arent in the best shape either. if DNA testing shows they are all pumilio, hopefully its kept quiet.


----------



## MonarchzMan

Well, I don't know that Vincenti or Arborea would be lumped into pumilio, personally. People seem to put far too much emphasis on molecular genetics and not enough on ecology or biogeography. Pumilio ranges from Nicaragua to Panama without any real breaks in the population. They fill the same niche throughout the range. Every phylogeny that comes out has new and different relationships of populations. Pumilio, at least in Bocas, developed within the last 9,000 years, which is very young for a species, so the molecular genetics are going to be very, very similar. Given that, I don't see the real use in trying to describe or separate species based on molecular genetics. Older species, sure, but as been shown, these species are too close to glean anything conclusive.

It is far better, IMO, to separate them out based on ecology and biogeography right now. But I'm rather old fashioned in that.


----------



## skylsdale

"Because epigenetically derived phenotypic plasticity can create physical differences from the same genotype, you could indeed have physical differences between the red wolf and the _lycaon_ subspecies of gray wolf that Nowak identified, with no genetic differences that White and colleagues identified - just as it is with the different ecotypes of elk.

"This conclusion would not surprise Val Geist, who believes there is so much phenotypic plasticity built into species, especially the hoofed mammals he as studied, that taxonomy based on body characteristics is relatively meaningless. But wait. That depends on what we are trying to understand. If the purpose of taxonomy is to determine lineages and to resurrect past evolutionary relationships, then genetics does the job. Genotype is paramount. However, if the purpose of taxonomy is to classify biological diversity, then different ecotypes, with their different environments, regional adaptations, and histories, must be the overriding criterion. Phenotype is paramount."

John & Mary Theberge, _The Ptarmigan's Dilemma: An Exploration Into How Life Organizes and Supports Itself_


----------



## jbherpin

skylsdale said:


> "Because epigenetically derived phenotypic plasticity can create physical differences from the same genotype, you could indeed have physical differences between the red wolf and the _lycaon_ subspecies of gray wolf that Nowak identified, with no genetic differences that White and colleagues identified - just as it is with the different ecotypes of elk.
> 
> "This conclusion would not surprise Val Geist, who believes there is so much phenotypic plasticity built into species, especially the hoofed mammals he as studied, that taxonomy based on body characteristics is relatively meaningless. But wait. That depends on what we are trying to understand. If the purpose of taxonomy is to determine lineages and to resurrect past evolutionary relationships, then genetics does the job. Genotype is paramount. However, if the purpose of taxonomy is to classify biological diversity, then different ecotypes, with their different environments, regional adaptations, and histories, must be the overriding criterion. Phenotype is paramount."
> 
> John & Mary Theberge, _The Ptarmigan's Dilemma: An Exploration Into How Life Organizes and Supports Itself_


Wonderful quote! Thanks for that...

JBear


----------



## skylsdale

Here is another excerpt since I think it is also related (by the way, I would highly recommend this book for those interested on the topic):

"What, if anything, does this expanded understanding of the various sources of phenotypic plasticity mean? Will it shake up the world? It could, but it is too early to know... a few decades from now we may be viewed as having lived in the medical Dark Ages. Referring to all species, Jablonka and Lamb wrote, 'Our basic claim is that biological thinking about heredity and evolution is undergoing a revolutionary change.'

"This new understanding cannot help but have implications for conservation. At present, the major focus of species conservation has been on genetics, which is still mistakenly seen by many biologists as the sole basis of heritability and thus of distinctive species. As environments alter rapidly, which is a predicted consequence of global climate change, species adaptations through epigenetics may prove more important than adaptions through genetics. Evidence shows that variation through epigenetics is faster than through gene selection alone, especially if linked to environmental stress. Living things with rich epigenetic systems may exhibit the greatest phenotypic plasticity to meet the conditions of the near future. A new field, epigenetic ecology, may be vital if we are to find ways to maintain biodiversity."

I can't help but wonder what's contained within _Oophaga pumilio,_ given that they are able to adapt so well in disturbed and altered environments, and also display such striking variability.


----------



## sports_doc

Revived!

So with the group of Nicaraguan pumilio 'Blue Jean' imported last year, would they be O. typographica? in 2015?


----------



## MonarchzMan

I think they'd still be pumilio. By the Prohl paper, it would be O. typographica, but I don't think that that is widely accepted outside of the Prohl lab. Unless there is new research I'm not aware of it, the big problem with the Prohl paper is that it's based on mitochondrial loci, which while informative, has its own problems for inferring species relationships.

If you adhere to the Prohl taxonomy, then, yes, the Nicaraguan would be O. typographica. I personally have yet to be convinced.


----------

