# Time to do some relearning/forgetting names...



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

No offense to taxonomists, but this sort of thing just drives me nuts! We just had a genera change in dendrobatids a couple years ago, but here's another one. It seems somewhat robust, so maybe these changes will stay for a while...

Anyway, basically, we got a bunch of stuff lumped back into Dendrobates including Oophaga and Ranitomeya. Basically, most of the "old" names are back. Here's the paper for those interested:

PLoS Biology: Amazonian Amphibian Diversity Is Primarily Derived from Late Miocene Andean Lineages


----------



## Petersi (Jan 31, 2008)

Im with you JP thats really annoying.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

While I didn't agree with some of the original divisions, I'm not sure that this is warrented either. Have there been any responses yet? That is what I'm interested in seeing, as it will outline the argument and proof better. 

Ed


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

The lumpers fire back at the splitters...

At least it's not with firearms.


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

They don't really make an argument against Grant's taxonomy. If you look at their phylogram (S3) it is pretty much identical to the one in Grant's paper. Seeing as how Grant's taxonomy makes so much sense in practical terms, and is based on strong phylogenetic data, I don't see how this paper would make us change back. It is more about the pattern and timeline of speciation and less about taxonomy. 

I say let's keep Grant's taxonomy.
-Mark


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree with Mark as well...I think Grant et al's taxonomy is more in need of some fine-tuning rather than a complete overhaul.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

As far as I can tell, the point of the paper isn't about taxonomy, it's about how the Andean orogeny played a role in the diversification of the family.

Since the authors make no argument for their nomenclature, I'm guessing that they are among those who never accepted the new genera in the first place. Unless there's something I'm missing.


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

Catfur said:


> As far as I can tell, the point of the paper isn't about taxonomy, it's about how the Andean orogeny played a role in the diversification of the family.
> 
> Since the authors make no argument for their nomenclature, I'm guessing that they are among those who never accepted the new genera in the first place. Unless there's something I'm missing.



Please note the overlap in authors between the Grant paper and this one. And those that are not shared are some serious heavy-hitters among amphibian biologists.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Afemoralis said:


> Please note the overlap in authors between the Grant paper and this one. And those that are not shared are some serious heavy-hitters among amphibian biologists.


Which is why I am curious to see if there is going to be a response or not which will give a better clue as to whether it is meant as reversal taxonomically or not. 

Ed


----------



## NorthernFrogguy1976 (Apr 7, 2009)

Wow, so were going back to the old names? Any more news?


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

Dendrobatesrichardii said:


> Wow, so were going back to the old names? Any more news?


Does anyone see a good reason to abandon the new names? I'm no taxonomist, but how does a paper like this, which doesn't even mention the old names, cause us to revert? The new names make so much more sense...


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I agree 100 percent


----------

