# New paper: Revision of Ranitomeya



## ETwomey

Dear all,

I'd like to inform everyone that our monograph on Ranitomeya just came out in Zootaxa. 

The abstract can be read here: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/z03083p120f.pdf

If anyone would like a reprint, please contact myself or Jason Brown (our email addresses can be found in the abstract). 

Finally, we have posted an article summarizing the changes on dendrobates.org which is available here: Dendrobates.org - Summary of Changes

Regards,

Evan Twomey


----------



## wiedemey

Congratulations on the paper! Looking forward to reading it.

Ruprecht


----------



## parkanz2

Guess I gotta change my tank labels!


----------



## frogparty

Interesting, now I have new taxonomy to memorize 
Makes the whole "amazonica vs iquitos ventrimaculata" thing easier, but I am pretty surprised by the "lamasi and sirensis" grouping. Keep up the good work guys


----------



## JeremyHuff

So FG Vents are actually variabilis? Wow, wouldn't expect that at all. Are Iquitos vents actually amazonicus or variables?

EDIT, just reread the changes - ignore my post.


----------



## ETwomey

No, French Guiana vents would actually be amazonica (this relationship has been suspected for some time, it is just "official" now). 

And the frogs from Iquitos are also amazonica (there are some populations of variabilis that come near Iquitos but I don't think these are in the hobby...maybe Mark could shed some light on this?).


----------



## thedude

My world has been turned upside down!

So there's no lamasi now? And the original sirensis population stays the same?

And all ventrimaculata are now variabilis, except the reddish-orange populations around Iquitos, and the frogs from French Guiana, which are now amazonica?


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Does this mean that we can get some of the former sirensis in the hobby now? I'm a little curious also, what sirensis was found breeding with, was it green lamasi, orange lamasi, etc? Which of these naturally breed together and which are in isolated populations?


----------



## Azurel

Interesting advancements....Keep up the great work and research. Confused to say the least......We need a flow chart..LOL


----------



## ETwomey

All you guys that keep lamasi can be happy, cause you just got an upgrade: all your frogs are now sirensis, one of the rarest species known!

The 'pure' sirensis were found breeding with red-striped lamasi. This is pretty close to Panguana, and there are several reddish-orange populations around there. There are some photos of this in the paper.


----------



## hypostatic

This actually made me laugh out loud on dendrobates.org:


> Many people seem to think taxonomists only make taxonomic changes so that they can keep their jobs. We can assure you that this is not the case.


Also, I think i read in the abstract that molecular data was used for the revised designations, so does this mean that the species were compared genetically?


----------



## ETwomey

Yes, lots of genetic data. A lot more than we had published before.


----------



## hypostatic

Gah that's the juicy stuff! Too bad I can't access it =(


----------



## stemcellular

Fantastic job, and damn well written, esp by Zootaxa standards. Funny, just reread Grant last weekend and now this!


----------



## james67

interesting. 

so will you have to publish the location where you found the "old" sirensis now? 

it should also be noted to those reading this thread that as this paper illustrates, names are not set in stone and just as the name amazonica persisted, after there was vast speculation as to its validity, i suspect some of the names of the frogs that have been changed in this proposal for new classification, will remain the same (at least for some time) 

james


----------



## SmackoftheGods

james67 said:


> i suspect some of the names of the frogs that have been changed in this proposal for new classification, will remain the same (at least for some time)


Not for me. All of your lamasi are now sirensis.... I am a little disappointed that duellmani are now vents, though.... :/


----------



## Okapi

Im curious, how do we know that the two were not naturally hybridizing in the area where they were seen together? Was there also genetic data taken? Im not trying to say that your data is wrong, im just curious.


----------



## Glasious

Okapi said:


> Im curious, how do we know that the two were not naturally hybridizing in the area where they were seen together? Was there also genetic data taken? Im not trying to say that your data is wrong, im just curious.


The Paper shows that they are the same species genetically; most of the paper is based on both genetic and morphological data. the original _R. sirensis_ is nested in the middle of the "_R. lamasi_" tree indicating they are the same species.

Its a great paper and it is definitely a great read!


----------



## ETwomey

Another thing we noticed is that the amount of black coloration seemed to be variable in areas where these two "species" (really morphs) contacted each other. What is strange is that if you picture a red/orange "lamasi" without any black patterning (basically an amelanistic morph), you could picture something like a typical sirensis (complete with the belly patch, and the leg color is also the same). So maybe there is some sort of genetic mutation which naturally occurs in this population that causes some frogs to lose their black patterning?

We were just as surprised by this as everyone else.

Evan


----------



## skylsdale

I took the visual species tree from p. 25 and compiled it into a list for those who may benefit from seeing it all together.

*RANITOMEYA*

*variabilis group:*
amazonica
variabilis

*defleri group:*
defleri
toraro

*reticulata group:*
ventrimaculata
reticulata
uakarii
summersi
fantastica
benedicta

*vanzolinii group:*
sirensis (formerly lamasi)
yavaricola
cyanovittata
imitator
vanzolini
flavovittata


*ANDINOBATES*

*minutus group:*
claudiae
minutus

*fulguritus group:*
fulguritus
altobueyensis

*bombetes group:*
abditus
daleswansoni
dorisswansoni
tolimensis
bombetes
virolinensis
opisthomelas


*EXCIDOBATES*
captivus
mysteriosus


----------



## stemcellular

I also have a link to the full paper if its needed. just PM me.


----------



## Afemoralis

Just finished a first read through. Wow.

The photos alone are going to create some serious frog lust on this website.

Perhaps more importantly the paper is going to serve as a great way to draw in frog hobbyists to the science and conservation sides.

Need links to an intro to systematics? Molecular genetics? Taxonomy? A discussion of why this is important for conservation? Here is your starting point. I'm going to post another thread to facilitate these sorts of discussions (unless the mods have another way to do it that they think would work better). All you biologists who lurk in the dark recesses of dendroboard- please chime in. Let's take advantage of this moment.

-Afemoralis


----------



## thedude

SmackoftheGods said:


> Not for me. All of your lamasi are now sirensis.... I am a little disappointed that duellmani are now vents, though.... :/


Thats how I feel about it as well. Gotta change some files and labels  

at least "duellmani" are the only vents. Its not like they are lumped with other"vent" populations.


----------



## johnc

It looks like the species accounts on dendrobates.org are still being updated to take into account this new work (_Ranitomeya amazonica_ coming?) 

Congratulations to our friends though, and thank you. On the face of it, it makes sense to me. From my own selfish hobbyist point of view, I don't have anything that needs label changing, but I'm curious to see how the morphs/races get named/assigned in the updates. I see "Lowland" for some former _Ranitomeya ventrimaculata_ that are now assigned to _R. variabilis_ on the _R. variabilis_ account.

All of this aside, I'm incredibly keen to hear the take of the Dendrobates.org guys on the difference in temperaments between Southern Variabilis and "Lowland" Variabilis in captivity. I accept the species assignment, don't get my wrong, but it amazes me that within one species we can have perhaps the boldest thumbnail (Southerns are as bold as any _R. imitator_), and what are competitors for the title of shyest thumbnails ("Lowland").

Keep up the good work!


----------



## johnc

Actually, one other point for you guys: the image file names that have been assigned to the new species names over at dendrobates.org are still named for the old ones. E.g. the ventrimaculata images still retain their old duellmani file names. Hopefully you can get to changing these, if only to minimize search engine confusion.


----------



## skylsdale

JohnC, it's probably similar to some of my E. anthonyi: my "Santa Isabel" frogs come out from the woodwork and nearly attack my hand at every feeding--there is no fear. Meanwhile, I have to assume the "Rio Saladillo" anthonyi in the next tank over are still in there based purely on fecal evidence.


----------



## thedude

johnc said:


> All of this aside, I'm incredibly keen to hear the take of the Dendrobates.org guys on the difference in temperaments between Southern Variabilis and "Lowland" Variabilis in captivity. I accept the species assignment, don't get my wrong, but it amazes me that within one species we can have perhaps the boldest thumbnail (Southerns are as bold as any _R. imitator_), and what are competitors for the title of shyest thumbnails ("Lowland").
> 
> Keep up the good work!


If you think about it, the original variabilis was already like that. While the Southerns are incredibly bold, the Highlands are extremely shy usually. So its not that different in that sense.

At the same time its like Ron pointed out, that behaviour change happens in other species as well. For example, El Cope and Blue auratus. Thinking about boldness, they are like night and day.


----------



## stemcellular

skylsdale said:


> JohnC, it's probably similar to some of my E. anthonyi: my "Santa Isabel" frogs come out from the woodwork and nearly attack my hand at every feeding--there is no fear. Meanwhile, I have to assume the "Rio Saladillo" anthonyi in the next tank over are still in there based purely on fecal evidence.


Funny Ron, my Rios are always out. How is the tank setup?


----------



## johnc

My Rios are also shy like that Ron. They are out when I go into the frog room but always dive for cover.


----------



## botanyboy03

thedude said:


> If you think about it, the original variabilis was already like that. While the Southerns are incredibly bold, the Highlands are extremely shy usually. So its not that different in that sense.
> 
> At the same time its like Ron pointed out, that behaviour change happens in other species as well. For example, El Cope and Blue auratus. Thinking about boldness, they are like night and day.



My INIBICO variabilis are extremely bold. Their neighbors, the old line UE Cayenne vents( now variabilis) are very shy frogs for me so far.


----------



## johnc

I had the pleasure of looking after INIBICO variabilis for Ray (Stemcellular) a few times and while they weren't shy, they don't compare to the southerns in boldness. I would rate my Southern females as being as bold or bolder than any imitator I keep.


----------



## thedude

johnc said:


> I had the pleasure of looking after INIBICO variabilis for Ray (Stemcellular) a few times and while they weren't shy, they don't compare to the southerns in boldness. I would rate my Southern females as being as bold or bolder than any imitator I keep.


Boldest Ranitomeya in my book. I can pull a snail out of the tank when it's an inch away from my male without him caring.


----------



## botanyboy03

So Southerns are more bold than the others. Interesting to know.

Zac


----------



## stemcellular

I think we should exercise caution when making generalizations about "shyness". Behavior can be affected by many things, including temps, enclosure design, etc. I keep many "shy" frogs and many "bold" frogs and honestly, neither category fully represents their behavior. I have many "shy" mantella that I see much more often than my "bold" escudo. Alternatively, my Rio Saladillo E. anthonyi are much more "bold" than any Ranitomeya that I have kept. 

Just like people, making designations based only on observation raises serious issues. For a more complete justification, see Aristotle et all.


----------



## johnc

My Varadero imitator are as shy as my benedicta, so Ray is wise.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

stemcellular said:


> I think we should exercise caution when making generalizations about "shyness". Behavior can be affected by many things, including temps, enclosure design, etc. I keep many "shy" frogs and many "bold" frogs and honestly, neither category fully represents their behavior. I have many "shy" mantella that I see much more often than my "bold" escudo. Alternatively, my Rio Saladillo E. anthonyi are much more "bold" than any Ranitomeya that I have kept.
> 
> Just like people, making designations based only on observation raises serious issues. For a more complete justification, see Aristotle et all.


I have to completely agree. I think only some of the shyness issue is specific to the species. I have many ideas and hypothesis about what causes certain frogs to be shy and others to be more bold. I found that when I transitioned from moss to leaf litter, I was able to see my frogs out more, however, this could be just a factor of time. All my vivariums are near my desk and I spend a considerable amount of time there. Could the frogs have simply adapted to my presence, learned it is not a threat, and adapted their behavior accordingly? Something that supports this is my new "Southern" varabilis are still a little shy, but they have a thick layer of leaf litter. Time will tell if they are as bold as people have described them to be. 

I wonder with frogs kept in frog rooms vs higher traffic areas, as in my frogs, how much visability and activity external to the tanks the frogs are exposed to determines how bold they are. I would hypothesize that if you only step into your frog room to mist, feed, do frog chores the frogs are less used to seeing you and thus would flee when they see you. My experience with fishes has taught me that often times when an aquarium is placed in a back room of the house or an out of the way corner the fish are often shy when you approach, but when kept in a high traffic area they are acustomed to your presence and thus are not alarmed by it. To some extent this probably is true for our frogs.

Overall I think who is shy and who isn't is a very subjective observation as well. One persons interpretation of a frogs behavior is completely different from someone elses. How much of the judgement is also based on expectations.


----------



## Ed

ZookeeperDoug said:


> I wonder with frogs kept in frog rooms vs higher traffic areas, as in my frogs, how much visability and activity external to the tanks the frogs are exposed to determines how bold they are.
> .


There was an interesting thesis done with this idea on white's tree frogs see http://www.maryvillecollege.edu/files/79/French.pdf 

Ed


----------



## pumiliochaser

*Vanzolinii group should be its own genus?Re: New paper: Revision of Ranitomeya*

I am curious what keeps this "vanzolinii" clade within Ranitomeya? They seem distinct enough to warrant their own genus.


----------



## sjaakdaak

Indeed they could be, without any serious consequences. The could also just as easily stay within _Ranitomeya_. The decision to split or not is very personal, as a genus, like all other groups including species, is only a human invention.

I'd like to say thanks to the authors of this particular article, as I noticed at least some of them read this board. I've had a good read and it made me long for the days I was still a biology student. Articles like these stimulate me mentally after I became a system administrator


----------



## pumiliochaser

Taxonomy can be more than a human invention for communicating basic patterns of biological diversity; when done well it can also allow evolution's story to be revealed in all its nuanced glory.


----------



## sjaakdaak

I'd like to argue that statement. The process of revealing the evolutionary history is called phylogenetic systematics. Taxonomy is a naming convention, which, at least to you and me (and most other members here) is supposed to be based upon the results of systematic research.

People with different insights will recognise different taxa, probably based upon characters that are not autapomorphies. In Dutch, for example, whales are called "walvis". The second syllable means fish. They have fins, and that is probably why they were considerd fish when they first got their name. Such a naming system would not reflect an evolutionary history, but it would still be a proper taxonomy.


----------



## pumiliochaser

Right. But in practice, in discourse, it comes down to the name (taxonomy) to reveal the relationships (systematics). We are ****, they are Pan, so close in DNA as to be twins and yet only the former can argue late-night frog semantics on an internet forum devoted to brightly hued frogs from the Neotropics.

Back on course...

From my observations, a Ranitomeya vanzolinii group frog is a much more behaviorally complex beast than say a Ranitomeya reticulata frog-- the vanzolinii rears its offspring through larval development with nutritive eggs supplied via a choreographed effort of both parents. The reticulata never gets past the tadpole deposition stage with its parental care duties. On every level-- behavior, neuro hardwiring, DNA...they are distinct clades with multiple, defined "species" neatly occupying those clades. 

regards,
Steve


----------



## sjaakdaak

By neighbours seem to belong to the genus _****_ as well, at least based on morphological characteristics. They won't be discussing semantics on any board whatsoever, I'm sure 

I don't argue your point about the _vanzolinii_-group within _Ranitomeya_. They are certainly different and they form a monophyletic group. I don't think anyone would be surprised if or perhaps better when the _vanzolinii_-group will receive a generic status of its own. What I wanted to point out is that there is no necessity to do so. With or without encluding this particular group, _Ranitomeya_ will remain a monophyletic taxon. Genera, like all other levels (including species), are not really natural entities. There is no strict border with any measurable variables delimiting it that can be used to either separate or lump found phylogenetic lineages. What to in- or exclude from a certain taxon remains very personal, as long as the rules of phylogenetic systematics and the International Codes for Zoological or Botanical Nomenclature are followed.


----------



## pumiliochaser

Yes, you are correct but my point is more about nuance and using taxonomy with finesse and dare I say...revealing the poetry in evolution's motion? These are beautiful animals, some of Nature's most flamboyantly beautiful creations...they deserve a name befitting their beauty. We deserve to have something beautiful flow past out tongue when we refer to these animals that we care so deeply about.

The new taxonomy for the Dendrobatidae certainly lacks some imagination and aesthetic taste...

"Ameerga" sounds like something I might shout to my toilet the morning after a night of heavy drinking. And...Ranitomeya...while it sounds nice...honors a forgotten tropical fish hobbyist from the Netherlands; the original description published somewhere in the gray literature in such an obscure tome, "Het Paludarium", that no one can double check its veracity because copies probably don't even exist. "Het Paludarium", if it ever existed has long returned to the compost heap. I can't find it at any university science library. Tomey? Who is he? What did he do that was so significant in the story of neotropical poison frog evolution as to warrant an entire genus named in his honor (yes I am jealous).

It is so cumbersome to say, when referring to those wonderful metallic jewels of the Andes/Amazon interface as "the vanzolinii group of Ranitomeya" or the "reticulata group of Ranitomeya"; I have been obsessed with these creatures for long enough to recall the time when they used to be "the quinquevittatus group of Dendrobates". 20 years later, you can see how useless that description was. It'd be easier and more accurate to give them separate genera.

Oh well.


----------



## sjaakdaak

I really don't want to defacate on anyone's party, but _Ameerega_ was also named after a Dutch hobbyist. 
I can see your seniment and I like it, even though I can't really share it. I guess I'm a bit too stuffy and all I care about is whether names are valid or not.


----------



## pumiliochaser

Defecation or thought-provoking conversation? I enjoy volleying this sort of critical thinking about.


----------



## sjaakdaak

So do I. Because of your comments I've been thinking about how to get the articles in which the names _Ranitomeya_, _Oophaga_ and _Ameerega_ were first made available. I've managed to find an address of Luuc Bauer and I'll send him a message asking him if he has any digital copies of the articles he wrote in the eighties. If they exist, I'll gladly share them.


----------



## sjaakdaak

I'd strongly advise you not to hold your breath until the articles arrive... The email address I found (it's good to be an IT-pro sometimes, although I miss the atmosphere in museums quite often) was at least a valid one, but it might take a while before I get a reaction, if of course any will come.

By the way, I learned a few things already:



> Tomey? Who is he? What did he do that was so significant in the story of neotropical poison frog evolution as to warrant an entire genus named in his honor (yes I am jealous).


Wim Tomey was the first to introduce _Ranitomeya reticulata_ in Europe, many years ago. It seems he also considered the species now called _Ranitomeya_ deserved their own genus. Jan Meere (recently deceased) was one of the first in Holland to keep dendrobatids.


----------



## Shockfrog

Bauer's publications in Het paludarium where pretty much non-science, which is why the names where never accepted at the time. Thing is that these names where the first available ones when all Dendrobatids where revised, and became used after some scientists did proper research into these frogs. 
I'm sure I would be able to find the publications, but they don't hold any information of value.


----------



## sjaakdaak

Hi Remco,

Are you sure about that? The titles I found (published in RIPA, which seems to be short for a short lived title called Riparium) are in English and they seem to imply that Bauer was very well aware of the fact that he was introducing new names. In fact, the names are available because of that. If Bauer had only proposed new names without mentioning the intention to use them to differentiate a newly defined taxon, the names would be _nomina nuda_ and they would automatically have been deemed unavailable. They could still be used by later authors, but in that case the one properly describing the genus would have been the authority, and not Bauer. Because he is, I guess his articles at least met the criteria stated in the ICZN.


----------



## Shockfrog

I might be mistaken on 'Het paludarium' as I didn't look it up and just wrote it down because 'pumiliochaser' did. Anyhow, I did read Bauer's articles we are talking about. Not sure if they meet any criteria though, the proposed names where never used intill 2006 Grant et al.


----------



## Ed

Shockfrog said:


> I might be mistaken on 'Het paludarium' as I didn't look it up and just wrote it down because 'pumiliochaser' did. Anyhow, I did read Bauer's articles we are talking about. Not sure if they meet any criteria though, the proposed names where never used intill 2006 Grant et al.


As I understood it, most of the names were published in a "journal" that was little more than a flyer that he self published. It was not a recognized journal nor were holotypes deposited into a museum collection for referral in the case of questions. I don't know whether or not that some of the descriptions were made from pictures instead of the actual physical animal or not but that has also been passed around. 
Apparently even though the literature was not peer reviewed, or recognized as a "scientific" journal, through some quirk of the nomenclature rules the name(s) are valid and Grant et al accepted them.. so unless something comes up to invalidate them we are stuck with them. 

Ed


----------



## pumiliochaser

sjaakdaak said:


> Because he is, I guess his articles at least met the criteria stated in the ICZN.


Does anyone know a good reference for the ICZN criteria?


----------



## JeremyHuff

pumiliochaser said:


> Does anyone know a good reference for the ICZN criteria?


You can get the entire document online from their website. This has been an issue for years. In 'my world' of scorpions hundreds of species and taxonomic changes are made in joke journals or online, see for example the "journal" Euscorpius. My ex-boss lodged complaints with ICZN to no avail. However, if one chose to do a catalog, the author could choose to just not recognize these descriptions. I believe Norm Platnick does this with his spider catalog of the world. This is the way things are headed. 

Another "scientist" in Australia decided to "revise" the rattlesnakes in his own online journal and created new genera. I don't believe he ever looked at specimens. He has done many more problematic papers. I know several herpetologists were royally pissed about his papers.

In tarantulas, Andrew Smith describes stuff in books published by his wife's publishing company. He has named hundreds of species in these books. Another tarantula "taxonomist", Gunter Schmidt described numerous species by shed skins from hobbyists. He also publishes his own journal and describes at least one species a month...


----------



## skylsdale

Not to mention Herbert Axelrod in the fish/aquarium world naming the Cardinal tetra (_Paracheirodon axelrodi_) by describing it in an issue of his own magazine (Tropical Fish Hobbyist) before the researchers who discovered it released their paper.


----------



## sjaakdaak

pumiliochaser said:


> Does anyone know a good reference for the ICZN criteria?


Here it is.

I'm glad it's online now. While I was a grad student all I heard of it was that it was quite important to know the rules, but ten years ago, alpha taxonomy was already considered a bit obsolete. Back then, only one professor was really trying to get us to read the code, a few articles at a time and to let it "sink in". It's not a thrilling read, unless perhaps you're a lawyer, but it's been around for a long time and if we could all just stick to the rules our world would be so much better. I paid more than I could actually afford for a hard copy, but I'm still glad I have one at hand, even though I probably won't be descibing any new taxa anytime soon.

I strongly agree with Jeremy and Skylsdale about people describing new taxa in privately published magazins. The code permits that, I know, but I have always felt that taxonomy should be available to everyone. Thanks to the internet, there's a lot of knowledge to be found within minutes, like the article this topic was started about in the first place. I believe all scientific publications should be made available to the public. No one of course needs to be forced to take knowledge of all things done, but it seems no more than fair that all humanity would be able to benefit from the works done by a few who are lucky enough to have their lives centered around the beautiful task of gaining knowledge.



skylsdale said:


> Not to mention Herbert Axelrod in the fish/aquarium world naming the Cardinal tetra (_Paracheirodon axelrodi_) by describing it in an issue of his own magazine (Tropical Fish Hobbyist) before the researchers who discovered it released their paper.


That's a fine example. Don't forget Heiko Bleher, talking of popular fish related stuff, who's a great field biologist, but whose publications are as elusive as the ones Bauer wrote. His work is privately funded and his articles are only available to those who are willing to pay good money. Of course, I understand that the man has to make a living, but so do I...


----------



## sjaakdaak

Ed said:


> As I understood it, most of the names were published in a "journal" that was little more than a flyer that he self published. It was not a recognized journal nor were holotypes deposited into a museum collection for referral in the case of questions. I don't know whether or not that some of the descriptions were made from pictures instead of the actual physical animal or not but that has also been passed around.
> Apparently even though the literature was not peer reviewed, or recognized as a "scientific" journal, through some quirk of the nomenclature rules the name(s) are valid and Grant et al accepted them.. so unless something comes up to invalidate them we are stuck with them.
> 
> Ed


Holotypes, at least when genera are described with type species already described before, are not needed. The type species will have type specimens deposited somewhere already.
The Code actually permitted one to use "microfiche" to publish on. I wouldn't even know how to read one...


----------



## pumiliochaser

sjaakdaak said:


> Don't forget Heiko Bleher, talking of popular fish related stuff, who's a great field biologist, but whose publications are as elusive as the ones Bauer wrote. His work is privately funded and his articles are only available to those who are willing to pay good money. Of course, I understand that the man has to make a living, but so do I...




The fanatics of all these obscure tropical faunas outnumber the scientists working on them professionally like 1000:1. You can understand their fanatical interest to making a contribution, whether or not they have the training to undertake it with precision. Also, science, by its nature is a slow process-- it's taken 20 years for me to see a scientist verify some of the things I have seen in my own terraria (e.g. I was watching monogamous biparental care in Ranitomeya flavovittatus back in 1991--both the frog and the reproductive mode were not described then and I was seeing such things with my own eyes ). I finally got around to reading some of J. Brown's recent papers (ok, I was up till 4AM this morning!) and his work is fantastic. Definitely the sort of scholarship these frogs are deserving of.

Heiko for good or bad is the greatest fish explorer the world has ever seen. No one, no scientist in history has seen the range and diversity of tropical fish habitats as Heiko. He's got a lot of personal flaws and is an easy target for criticism from armchair naturalists but man, just imagine the amazing things he has seen over the course of just one life.


----------



## JeremyHuff

pumiliochaser said:


> The fanatics of all these obscure tropical faunas outnumber the scientists working on them professionally like 1000:1. You can understand their fanatical interest to making a contribution, whether or not they have the training to undertake it with precision. Also, science, by its nature is a slow process-- it's taken 20 years for me to see a scientist verify some of the things I have seen in my own terraria (e.g. I was watching monogamous biparental care in Ranitomeya flavovittatus back in 1991--both the frog and the reproductive mode were not described then and I was seeing such things with my own eyes ). I finally got around to reading some of J. Brown's recent papers (ok, I was up till 4AM this morning!) and his work is fantastic. Definitely the sort of scholarship these frogs are deserving of.


I think much behavior is discovered by hobbyists. Egg eating was discovered and published by my friend Peter Weygoldt a decade or more before it was published elsewhere. Taxonomy is an entirely different field however. Tens or Hundreds of specimens should be looked at to look at population and species variation before determining if something is new. A hobbyist simply can't do it because most museums don't allow non-professionals to borrow or examine specimens. When "new" species are erroneously described it just makes things worse for the next person down the line.


----------



## pumiliochaser

JeremyHuff said:


> When "new" species are erroneously described it just makes things worse for the next person down the line.


Or...job security...depending on how you look at it.


----------



## sjaakdaak

pumiliochaser said:


> Heiko for good or bad is the greatest fish explorer the world has ever seen. No one, no scientist in history has seen the range and diversity of tropical fish habitats as Heiko. He's got a lot of personal flaws and is an easy target for criticism from armchair naturalists but man, just imagine the amazing things he has seen over the course of just one life.


I did say I consider him a great field biologist. I've done some field work in the past and I've had the pleasure to meet some of the great men from back when, so that compliment isn't exactly hollow.

Back to our original conversation: I've had a reply from Lucas Bauer. He promised me he would find the articles and get them to me. I guess he intends to use old fashioned mail for that, so it might take a while, but at least this looks pretty promising.


----------



## pumiliochaser

sjaakdaak said:


> I did say I consider him a great field biologist. I've done some field work in the past and I've had the pleasure to meet some of the great men from back when, so that compliment isn't exactly hollow.
> 
> Back to our original conversation: I've had a reply from Lucas Bauer.


I know, I was just trying to preempt any Heiko-bashing before it started...Heiko-bashing seems to be a hobby in itself for some. I don't know him personally and I can't vouch for his character...but he has seen and done it all.

Excellent news about the Bauer papers--thanks!


----------



## JeremyHuff

pumiliochaser said:


> Or...job security...depending on how you look at it.


You lost me...Not sure what you are referring to. I would venture a guess that most taxonomists, at least in North America are tenured, so job security has nothing to do with it. Another big percentage are grad students who don't have a job yet. I am referring to just the mudding of waters in the field. As well as stomping on someone's life work, in some cases, by haphazardly describing anything thought to be new.

I'll refer to scorpions again, since this I know. 2 prolific "taxonomists" keep all the types in their personal collections. One collection is in Venezuela and off limits to be viewed. That taxonomist, Sponga, has since died and I believe his collection was going to a university, where it should be more accessible to outsiders. The other guy, Kovarik, is in the Czech republic and doesn't loan out anything. This individual also has a habit of removing specimens from bottles from various european museums. He also removes determination labels from others if he doesn't agree with them. I can't even explain in words what this idiot has done.


----------



## pumiliochaser

JeremyHuff said:


> I'll refer to scorpions again, since this I know. 2 prolific "taxonomists" keep all the types in their personal collections. One collection is in Venezuela and off limits to be viewed. That taxonomist, Sponga, has since died and I believe his collection was going to a university, where it should be more accessible to outsiders. The other guy, Kovarik, is in the Czech republic and doesn't loan out anything. This individual also has a habit of removing specimens from bottles from various european museums. He also removes determination labels from others if he doesn't agree with them. I can't even explain in words what this idiot has done.


Sounds problematic but also quite interesting...some curious personalities are attracted to these curious obsessions. I don't see a lot of problematic amateur work in the poison frog field. Rainer Schulte is of course, a lightning rod for controversy but his work was the groundbreaking efforts needed for more refined studies to come.


----------



## rahunt2

Keep up the good work. I have a lot of articles to read for grad school but this is at the top of my list. I can hardly keep up with the taxonomy.


----------



## Robzilla56

I agree this paper is fantastic! I got access to it through the NC State library and I read every word of it in one sitting. So many accredited scholars from North Carolina  ! I would love to see a similar papers on all the other groups of dart frogs like pumilio or tincs. Makes me wish I choose a different major many years ago.

Robbie


----------



## sjaakdaak

pumiliochaser said:


> Excellent news about the Bauer papers--thanks!


I have 'em! 

They are basically long stretches of text without any illustrations and a certain knowledge of what went on in the early eighties in the field of frog nomenclature is necessary before you will understand what they are about I guess. Literature cited is mainly popular literature although Bauer certainly read more. The lack of illustrations and correct quotation makes the articles hard to read in my opinion, but I'll leave it up to you to make up your own mind about them.
I'll try to make scans this week. Friday will be a very slow day in Holland because most people have a bank holiday (but not me, of course) so I'll probably have some spare time to scan them. Prepare for some quality issues. I received original thirty year old Xeroxes.


----------



## Ed

I figured I should bump this up since the article has since been made available on the web 
check it out at 
http://www.jasonleebrown.org/jasonl...n_Twomey_etal_2011_Revision_of_Ranitomeya.pdf 

Some comments 

Ed


----------

