# Considering whether to adopt new nomenclature



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

For those who don't know what this refers to see http://www.dendroboard.com/library/Grant_etal2006b.pdf

After watching how the European side of the hobby has embraced the new nomenclature, the fact that the latest PDF 'bible' uses the same and the genetic evidence differentiating the Dendrobates I am seriously considering a switch to the new naming system.

Downsides are:

(1) lack of common use in the US
(2) the proposed changes are still new and subject to scientific challenge/revision
(3) I'm a stubborn American :lol: 

What do others think?

Bill


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I`m lazy too. The AMNH has already changed as did a # of other american institutions. I should say I`m too busy to change and learn, not too lazy. :lol:


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

I'm holding off for a bit longer due to reason number 2...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

to support #2 

http://www.amphibiatree.org/?q=node/253


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I'm going to break with the groove here and say that I think I'm ready to start the transition. From the most recent info I can gather from people in the know, it sounds like even after the necessary revision and adjustment, the final (yes, I know there isn't really a "final") system is going to look much more like the Frost et. al. system than the old one. I think everyone agrees that amphibian systematics was in serious need of major revision. And it does sound like a lot of these proposed changes are going to stick. So my thought is that starting to make the switch now and making minor adjustments as more revisions are made may be easier than just holding out and way for the dust to settle, which may be a long time in coming. But I will say that my commitment to transitioning is luke warm at best so I can easily be swayed by convincing argument.

I'll have to admit though that I got the new Lotters book yesterday and it is pretty painful to adjust to the new nomenclature.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed said:


> to support #2
> 
> http://www.amphibiatree.org/?q=node/253


Thanks for this Ed. I was really starting to sweat over how I could possibly place anything but #3 first, in big bold. But I can now say #2 is my first reason followed by #3 in big bold.  

Rich


----------



## bellerophon (Sep 18, 2006)

Is there a chart or list somewhere that shows the old vs new nomenclature? I'm holding out on buying the new book but would still like to see what direction things are going.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> to support #2
> 
> http://www.amphibiatree.org/?q=node/253


I didn't realize that it was a full taxon change, not just Dendrobatidae. That's one thing that irritates me about taxonomists, most probably have no idea what the animals look like as they no longer look at morphology anymore and just genetics. Genetics can tell quite a bit, but I believe that there are other things that should be taken into consideration before one makes definitive groupings. Habits, habitats, morphology being a few of them. Oophaga may be justified, but as for the rest of the revision? I'm a bit more skeptical.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

> Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:12 am Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Is there a chart or list somewhere that shows the old vs new nomenclature? I'm holding out on buying the new book but would still like to see what direction things are going.


Yes, page 204 of the above posted document.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

> they no longer look at morphology anymore


The Grant et al pub talks about a lot of morphology actually...
Check out the latter half of it. There are even some pictures of cloacal porn


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The "correct" way to resolve the issues until the taxonomy is worked out would be to list both names 
for example with pumilio, if you accept the new revisions then the name should be written out as Oophagus (Dendrobates) pumilio if you aren't sure of the new revisions then it would be Dendrobates (Oophagus) pumilio. This allows people to get used to the new nomenclature until it is rejected or accepted for a given species and prevents any ambiguity in the interim. It is a little more work for typing but is solves a lot of issues in the long run. 

Ed


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

sorry for ridiculous multipost but is anybody else bothered by some of the phenotypic characters they used?
For example, a species labeled braccatus has almost none of the characters known...


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> The "correct" way to resolve the issues until the taxonomy is worked out would be to list both names
> for example with pumilio, if you accept the new revisions then the name should be written out as Oophagus (Dendrobates) pumilio if you aren't sure of the new revisions then it would be Dendrobates (Oophagus) pumilio. This allows people to get used to the new nomenclature until it is rejected or accepted for a given species and prevents any ambiguity in the interim. It is a little more work for typing but is solves a lot of issues in the long run.
> 
> Ed


I agree 200%. This is what is irritating me with the sudden switch. Some of the changes are drastic, like North American Bufo is now Anaxyrus.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

bbrock said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > The "correct" way to resolve the issues until the taxonomy is worked out would be to list both names
> ...


I think that that is still iffy and not quite as convincing as some of the other changes (i.e. Elaphe to Pantherophis).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> I think that that is still iffy and not quite as convincing as some of the other changes (i.e. Elaphe to Pantherophis).


So the question I have to ask is what does this have to do with listing the names in parantheses to prevent confusion? 

Ed


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Ed said:


> to support #2
> 
> http://www.amphibiatree.org/?q=node/253


This particular thwacking is in reference to the Frost, et al... paper, which deals with all anurans, and not the Grant, et al... paper, which is concerned with dendrobatids.

I would point out this post from another thread: 


Evan Twomey (AKA Ric Sanchez) said:


> I should mention something regarding the new nomenclature. Our (J. Brown and I) biggest problem with Grant's study was the strict use of parsimony (and only parsimony) to infer his phylogenies. We have since re-analyzed some of his data using statistical phylogenetics and found that most of the groups appear to be very similar to what Grant published. So despite the debatable methods he used it appears that his phylogenies are quite sound.
> 
> Now we just have to swallow the god-awful genus names proposed by Bauer back in the 80s and 90s (Ameerega, Ranitomeya. I actually like Oophaga!) We have slowly incorporated the new names into everyday use and actually find it somewhat useful. For instance, when someone says Ranitomeya you know they are referring to the thumbnail frogs, most likely from Peru. Currently the general consensus in the scientific community seems to be thumbs-up to the taxonomy proposed by Grant (although D. Cannatella hasn't chimed in yet). We've been meaning to update dendrobates.org with the new names but finding the time to do so is hard.
> 
> ...


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

The biggest question I have about this whole thing is why have Europeans been so open to the changes and follow the new names while we don't? Have they disregarded the citations above or do they have some more information that we just haven't processed yet. The weirdest thing about this whole situation to me is that they almost all seem to be on the wagon over there and we almost all seem to be off it over here... there has got to be a reason why it's skewed liek that, and I don't buy the stubborn American idea (although it may be true :wink: )


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> MonarchzMan said:
> 
> 
> > I think that that is still iffy and not quite as convincing as some of the other changes (i.e. Elaphe to Pantherophis).
> ...


Sorry, I should have been more specific, I was referencing the change of N.A. Bufo to Anaxyrus. I don't think that that's as convincing a change as some of the other recent taxonomic changes.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

sbreland said:


> The biggest question I have about this whole thing is why have Europeans been so open to the changes and follow the new names while we don't? Have they disregarded the citations above or do they have some more information that we just haven't processed yet. The weirdest thing about this whole situation to me is that they almost all seem to be on the wagon over there and we almost all seem to be off it over here... there has got to be a reason why it's skewed liek that, and I don't buy the stubborn American idea (although it may be true :wink: )


I don't know if this is true, but I've attributed it to the fact that we (new world) have ready access to folks working close to this problem and may have been privy to better information regarding the caveats of wholesale and quick adoption of such a scheme.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Like calling marine toads Channa? 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

What is needed to continue to validate the data, paper, etc... I get concerned when one paper can change everything we know today and it seems there is no sign off or approval of that work. Im sure it went though some type of review but by who? What does it take to change these names or are they something that someone just picked and they stuck?

As for the statement that the Europeans have accepted the change and are using this it, what is that based on? 

If the new names are wildly accepted and the right way to go I have no problem promoting the change. If it is simply a single paper that has not gained a lot of acceptance then I would be hesitant to accept the change just yet.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> What is needed to continue to validate the data, paper, etc... I get concerned when one paper can change everything we know today and it seems there is no sign off or approval of that work. Im sure it went though some type of review but by who? What does it take to change these names or are they something that someone just picked and they stuck?


Depends on what you mean by accepted. I would not say it is accepted by the scientific community as they see it for what it is, a paper that adds to the knowledgebase. If you browse Amphibiaweb, Amphbibians of the World, the Global Amphibian Assessment/NatureServe, you will see that only the AMNH (Frost's group) has fully adopted the new system. Other studies are in the works and will either support, or refute (almost certainly a little of both) the proposal of the earlier works. When studies using different methods, or at least methods that address the weaknesses of the earlier works confirm the previous results, then consensus is built and you will see acceptance of those areas where the most agreement occurs. That's the way the scientific community works anyway. It's too bad that amphibians don't have something like the Ornithologist's Union though. With birds it is a better system. A panel of experts reviews the science and makes a formal decision about nomenclature changes. The lay birding community simply follows the dictums of that panel. Clean and simple - although it is fun to watch the birders grumble when two species are lumped which reduces their life list counts by one.



> As for the statement that the Europeans have accepted the change and are using this it, what is that based on?


Lotters et. al. for example. It's a great book but will drive you crazy trying to figure out what is what. They should have spoken to Ed about parantheses before writing it.



> If the new names are wildly accepted and the right way to go I have no problem promoting the change. If it is simply a single paper that has not gained a lot of acceptance then I would be hesitant to accept the change just yet.


From what I gather, it is somewhere in between. A former herp museum curator has told me that while there are problems with the Frost paper, there is an emerging agreement with quite a bit of the proposed changes. I could have remembered that wrong so don't quote me. But I think that's what he said.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

So basically there maybe more information on the way that helps clarify or promote the new naming? If that is the case then maybe we should wait for that just in case there are any discrepancies.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

I think the parenthesis suggestion is a great one for the time being (with your opinion on the subject depending on which genus you put in parenthesis).


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> So basically there maybe more information on the way that helps clarify or promote the new naming? If that is the case then maybe we should wait for that just in case there are any discrepancies.


Yes, but the feeling I'm getting is that the descrepencies between the old/current system and what will be the "clarified" system may be a lot greater than descrepencies with this new system. So it is possible that adopting the new system may get us 80-90% to where the names will finally settle.... until whole genome classification trees become the rage and the whole think gets shaken apart again.


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

bbrock said:


> I agree 200%. This is what is irritating me with the sudden switch. Some of the changes are drastic, like North American Bufo is now Anaxyrus.


Bufo is now Anaxyrus??? Are you kiddin me? Bufo is one of the coolest names taxonomy has ever had! Why would you dump such a cool name? 

Why? I'll tell you why...grant money. This is not rocket science, folks. This is how these people make their living, and as soon as they stop "discovering" new differences between very similar, closely related species that have obviously simply split because of habitat isolation...they are out of a job and have to get a real one.

When I was a kid, softshell turtles were Trionyx...now they are Apalone. Names have been changed for bearded dragons, many tortoises, red-eared sliders, shingleback skinks....blah blah freakin blah. This whole thing is a great big freakin waste of time. Splitters and Groupers, making a living arguing about whether or not the fact that a painted turtle crossed a prairie 200 years ago, found a pond, and bred with a cooter, requires a new genus, sungenus, blah blah blah...it's a semi aquatic turtle with a pretty neck...nuff said. 

I'd love to hear one true benefit that has came from all of this kee-rap!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Smashtoad said:


> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> > I agree 200%. This is what is irritating me with the sudden switch. Some of the changes are drastic, like North American Bufo is now Anaxyrus.
> ...


In this case, it was pretty obvious that some of these genera are artificial conglomerations of species in a genus. With respect to Bufo, there is some validity to the idea that one genus isn't likely to have species on several different continents that have been seperated for a very very long time.. So it is reasonable that Bufo is retained by the European species of the genus Bufo as these were the first genus assigned to that name but this means all of the other species that are not part of that group need to be named and we have to go back to the first name they were given before they were lumped into Bufo.. So the name Bufo has not been dumped, it just no longer refers to non-European Bufo species anymore... 
The real question isn't was there sufficient evidence to split them out but was there sufficient evidence to warrent the splitting to the level at which it finally ended up. (at least with Bufo...)

This is the same reasoning why North American Elaphe were reassigned to Pantherophis and North American softshells were split from Trionyx to Apalone (Trionyx is now reserved for certain Asian soft shell turtles). 

Ed


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Smashtoad said:


> Why? I'll tell you why...grant money. This is not rocket science, folks. This is how these people make their living, and as soon as they stop "discovering" new differences between very similar, closely related species that have obviously simply split because of habitat isolation...they are out of a job and have to get a real one.


Yup - that's it - grant money. The stuff is pouring in right now from all agencies - better get it while you can, right? Gotta pay for the lab BMW somehow. And why would we think that old taxonomic divisions based primarily on phenotype and location ever be proved wrong with the advent of scientific technology? That would be silly.

Yeah - get a real job you scientists - maybe one that actually pays you for all those hours you spend working tirelessly. Who needs people teaching the future of America, understanding the world we live in, or making new discoveries? All a bunch of kee-rap if you ask me.


:roll:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

But Oz, what are you REALLY trying to say? ;-)

I agree, what is really happening with these revisions is that for the first time in scientific history, we have some powerful tools to peer into the evolutionary relationships of these animals. We should remember that systematics and nomenclature are two different things. If all we wanted were a set of labels we could all agree to call these things, the these constant changes would be silly. But what we want is a system of labels that reveals each species' place in relation to others in the tree of life. And these differences have real consequences because laws for conserving and protecting wildlife often rely on taxonomy to decide whether protection under a given law is warranted. Case in point is the southern boreal toad. It was warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act because it was considered a discrete population segment within a subspecies of western toad. Later, that finding was overturned because data were presented that indicated the "distinct population" finding was not warranted. And because the subspecies is not considered imperiled in other parts of its, now considered contiguous, range. Should molecular evidence suggest that indeed this is a discrete population, or even a different species or subspecies, then it would be strong evidence to warrant listing and getting the animals the protection they deserve. As it is, they appear to be going the way of the Dodo all because of quirks of systematics and the way that laws are implemented.


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

rozdaboff said:


> Smashtoad said:
> 
> 
> > Why? I'll tell you why...grant money. This is not rocket science, folks. This is how these people make their living, and as soon as they stop "discovering" new differences between very similar, closely related species that have obviously simply split because of habitat isolation...they are out of a job and have to get a real one.
> ...


So what are we teaching them? What is the end result? To prove exactly why, when, and where shingleback skinks seperated from other tiliqua...which they obviously did...now that would be an earth shattering discovery...much more important than efficiently harnessing the power of the sun, or removing salt from sea water. Why do a cornsnake, a black rat, a yellow rat and a texas rat, as juveniles, have essentially the same pattern in a different color? Geographical separation...cool! Let's go get a burger!

I'm not trying to be abrasive... and I'll get out of this thread, I don't want you guys to think I'm a jerk. I'm a morphology guy, and just use my eyes to give me all the relationship information I personally need to know. I realize that it goes much deeper...I just fail to see the importance of pursuing it...there is no real payoff for all the investment.

I may, however, check back now and again to see if anyone has listed that benefit to mankind that I requested. :shock:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Basic science is asked to prove itself time and time again and yet no matter how much proof is provided, it continues to be asked. Nearly all tecnological advances are built upon knowledge gained through basic science which is science that is persued simply to learn more about our world. In the case of systematics, I believe it is a very good thing for us to understand how speciation works and how genetics and speciation inter-relate. Knowing such things tells us a great deal about the blueprints of life which will help us harness that knowledge for any number of possible applications. The science of nature began with the simple identification and categorization of living things. From that information, patterns of species distribution emerged. And from those patterns of distributions, the theory of evolution was formed. Understanding evolution led us to understanding population biology and island biogeography. And these two fields form major underpinnings of ecology, conservation biology, and natural resource management. And it all started with simply trying to figure out what the heck somebody was looking at.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Personally I do not have a problem with the name changes or the ideas behind why they should change. Where I start to waiver is that it is based off of one paper. I am interested to see the follow up papers or studies that were referred to.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

For my own personal interest and benefit, I put together a 'short list' of the new changes with the frogs that either have a presence in the hobby or are frequently talked about/known. Figured I would post it for anyone else who might be interested in a quick reference:

*DENDROBATES*
tinctorius
auratus
truncatus
leucomelas
mysteriosus

*PHYLLOBATES*
bicolor
vittatus
aurotaenia
terribilis
lugubris

*ALLOBATES*
femoralis
triliniatus
zaparo
talamancae

*EPIPEDOBATES*
tricolor
anthonyi
boulengeri

*ADELPHOBATES*
castaneoticus
galactonotus
quinquevittatus
captivus

*HYLOXALUS*
azureiventris
sylvaticus
subpunctatus
infraguttatus

*RANITOMEYA*
fantasticus
reticulatus
minutus
ventrimaculatus
fulguritus
bombetes
vanzolinii
variabilis
biolat
lamasi
amazonicus
duellmani
flavovittatus
imitator

*AMEEREGA*
trivittatus
pictus
bracatus
maculatus
parvulus
hahneli
bassleri
petersi
smaragdinus
silverstonei
cainarachi
macero
rubriventris
pongoensis

*OOPHAGA*
histrionicus
pumilio
speciosus
sylvaticus
granuliferus
lehmanni
occultator
arboreus
vicentei


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

For me, the question of whether to adopt the new naming regime is a bit more pragmatic: 

How does it positively affect those keeping the frogs in captivity, and what are the potential negative effects?

Ultimately, I can't think of any frogs that we, as a hobby, could not identify in the family Dendrobatidae by the species name alone. In the short term, there may be some confusion by the change-over, but that is bound to happen any time change is made.

As long as we all understand what frog we're talking about, I don't see this as being a big problem one way or the other.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

An interesting post from Rainer Shulte on a German forum (sorry, but the translation isn't the best, but you get the idea of what he's saying)...

The system of Grant el al. In 2006 the Dendrobaten is recognized by me partially not for Peru, because zuviele mistakes are included in this work, among other things serious (see D. captivus, D. mysteriosus). Kind names of Luuc farmer are not recognized, because he lacked any base research and overview of the kinds and did not correspond publication to the guidelines. See as a Ref. also to new amphibians CITES GUIDE where we maintain the old Artnahmen. Amazonische "Epipedobates" run at the moment under Phobobates, until we separate mountain clades from lowland clades (see Roberts et al. In 2006). All Allobates must have biflagellate Spermatozoiden and this survey is absent with Grant et al. Cryptophyllobates will maintain and extends, until we find out what in the genetics there goes wrong. More soon comes in my two volumes Poison Dart Frogs: Peru, Vol. 2, Species account Second edition and PDF PERU Vol. 1: General Data, just in production are in Peru. I recommend the old names weiterzuverwenden. Molecular genetics with mDNA without nucleare genes mitzutesten is to be cleared incompetently around system of the Dendrobaten. Installation of Oophaga is likewise questionable, because D. vanzolinii also lives from feed eggs and not everything what Westandine Dendro kinds are have female transport! Thus care.

Sorry it isn't a bit more clear, but thought some might like to see that not all are adopting the new schematic and why.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Homer said:


> For me, the question of whether to adopt the new naming regime is a bit more pragmatic:
> 
> How does it positively affect those keeping the frogs in captivity, and what are the potential negative effects?
> 
> ...


I agree with Homer 100%. As long as we still have the species names in tact, imitator, galactonotus, reticulatus, pumilio, etc., will still be the same frog, and we can communicate without any confusion, no matter what separate genus or family they may be placed. For example, consider "azureus." They have been marketed for years as a separate species, but were then considered a morph of tinctorius species. It makes no difference to me where they've been placed, they are still azureus, and everyone knows what you're talking about when you refer to them.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Homer said:


> For me, the question of whether to adopt the new naming regime is a bit more pragmatic:
> 
> How does it positively affect those keeping the frogs in captivity, and what are the potential negative effects?
> 
> ...


Agreed Homer, but anyone who has read the new Lotters et al. book will quickly see the pragmatic problems. We are already in a situation where we have two groups calling the same frog by different names. Reading the Lotters et al. book is confusing to me because they adopt the new system full scale without any transitional parenthetic genera to ease translation. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to staying abreast of all the various dendrobatid species so it is a bit of a struggle to stop and make the translations in my head. Interestingly, the book does a wonderful job of describing the new nomenclature but only a scant acknowedgement that it may be temporary. The is no discussion that I found about justification for adopting the new system. That's not to ding the book though because it is wonderful. It is just an observation that it seems there is a group of froggers who think any peer-reviewed nomenclature warrants adoption.


----------



## bellerophon (Sep 18, 2006)

All this fuss over a few new words... :roll: Use em if ya want, don't if ya don't. If your waiting for something set in stone I think you'll be waiting quite a while. Personally I've decided to give the new names a shot, who's afraid of a little change.

.... now to get you Americans over to the metric system :wink:


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

As someone that has worked closely with Rainer in the past, here is a response to his above comments. I will address his comments in turn.

#1) There are many mistakes, for example, D. captivus and D. mysteriosus.
response) Grant did not assign mysteriosus to a genus; he was being conservative (since he had limited genetic data), and had zero data for captivus, so he assigned it to Adelphobates based on patterning. I don't see how either of those are mistakes, no one knows anything about the systematics of either of them! 

#2) Luc Bauer's names are not valid.
response) This is simply not true. While the names are awful, they do in fact meet the bare minimum requirements of ICZN. Grant was extremely careful about this - in fact, if it were me, I think I would have conveniently ignored Bauer's names and hope no one noticed...Grant went by the book, and that is respectable.

#3) We should use Phobobates.
response) I think Rainer is one of few that thinks this. And for the separation of montane and lowland clades, well, that is really not true. Look at trivittatus in that paper. Also, there are other species mentioned by Grant that don't support that idea (pictus I think).

#4) Allobates have biflagellate sperm.
response) Fine, this will probably support their status as a monophyletic group.

#5) Maintain Cryptophyllobates.
response) Ok, I don't know what he means by 'until we find out what in the genetics goes wrong'. Does that mean the genetic data is simply wrong? That would be weird, and I haven't seen any evidence of this aside from Rainer simply thinking it. In any case, Grant himself suggested that Cryptophyllobates should probably be redefined and resurrected, to include a suite of aposematic frogs, but this would require further taxonomic revision...

#6) Molecular genetics without nuclear DNA.
response) For many taxa, Grant sequenced RAG-1, histone H3, tyrosinase, rhodopsin, and SIA, all of which are nuclear. So that assertion is simply wrong. 

#7) vanzolinii group egg-feeds and thus Oophaga is an invalid name.
response) What kind of crazy logic is this? A genus name (or any name) does not have to be an unambiguous synapomorphy...i.e., just because other species might egg feed, it doesn't mean that you can't call one group 'the egg feeders'. By that logic the name 'Dendrobates' would be invalid, because monkeys walk in trees also. 


Anyways, it is true that there is still a lot of debate surrounding the acceptance of the new dendrobatid taxonomy, and there are both supporters and critics. For myself, I am starting to incorporate it into use because it 1) more accurately reflects what we know about the frogs, and 2) seems to be valid in that the phylogeny Grant got is very similar to what you get if you use other, more widely accepted methods. But only time will tell if it is accepted, and the Cannatella group has not chimed in yet.

p.s. I should mention that most of my comments refer to taxonomy of subfamily dendrobatinae (which is the old Dendrobates + Phyllobates).

-Evan


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

Well, perhaps I led some astray. I wasn't advocating Shulte's comments, only passing them along and pointing out that not all have accepted the new nomenclature aside from the Americans. I personally have no affiliation or knowledge of Shulte, and therefore can't comment on his ideas but I just thought some might find this interesting.


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

sbreland said:


> Well, perhaps I led some astray. I wasn't advocating Shulte's comments, only passing them along and pointing out that not all have accepted the new nomenclature aside from the Americans. I personally have no affiliation or knowledge of Shulte, and therefore can't comment on his ideas but I just thought some might find this interesting.



Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you advocated his comments. I am very glad you found them, however. I certainly found them interesting.

It might be interesting to take a vote, albeit perhaps premature. Although, the paper has been out for nearly 18 months....

-Evan


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

No, I understand, I just wanted to clarify, so no worries. 

I think there is merit to the new system but the problems come with how much if any (or all) is going to permanently be adopted. It's probably more of a stubborn issue as I can tell you I don't want to start calling pumilio oophaga today and then a year from now be told that they are really to be called pumilio after all and then new evidence points to them being called something else later. As someone stated, I don't think this is a fact of being confused what frog is what based on the new schematic as the species names don't really change (maybe some of the endings go from "us" to "a"), but tring to call the frogs by their "correct" scientific name, and it seems as of yet there has been nobody to validate that these are the true scientific names. There seems to be a lot of evidence that they are or will, but the ruling isn't final yet which is making some hesitant.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

sbreland said:


> No, I understand, I just wanted to clarify, so no worries.
> 
> I think there is merit to the new system but the problems come with how much if any (or all) is going to permanently be adopted.


Which brings us back to the beginning of the thread. Currently we are speaking two languages and need a translator to shift between the two. From everything I've heard, it sure sounds like 3 years from now we will all be speaking the language more similar to the new nomenclature than the current/old one. So it sure sounds like it is not a bad idea to begin adopting the new language.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

I agree. Even if all the new names don't hold a lot of them will, and Dendrobates won't be a category everything falls under anymore. If I have one dislike about the new system it is that the name Dendrobates is nearly obsolete with only 5 species falling under it. I know the changes are likely right, but when I (and likely most) started reading about darts, they were on "Dendro" boards, not Ranitomeyaboard or Ameeregaboard, so I guess it's kind of a sentimental complaint. Dendrobates just kinda pulled in all the forgs we consider darts and I hope that with a half a dozen or so new names that some things don't receive less attention because they aren't called Dendrobates... Guess that's evidence of the stubborn American in me... :wink:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

sbreland said:


> I agree. Even if all the new names don't hold a lot of them will, and Dendrobates won't be a category everything falls under anymore. If I have one dislike about the new system it is that the name Dendrobates is nearly obsolete with only 5 species falling under it. I know the changes are likely right, but when I (and likely most) started reading about darts, they were on "Dendro" boards, not Ranitomeyaboard or Ameeregaboard, so I guess it's kind of a sentimental complaint. Dendrobates just kinda pulled in all the forgs we consider darts and I hope that with a half a dozen or so new names that some things don't receive less attention because they aren't called Dendrobates... Guess that's evidence of the stubborn American in me... :wink:


Ah yes, but they still all fall under the super family Dendrobatoidae. So instead of being Dendrobatids, they are Dendrobatoids. So Dendroboard still fits.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

<----- Dendroheadache.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

LOL, 

Well if you want I can add a poll to this thread, just give me idea on what options you would like to see.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

It might be a good idea... there may be more people that want to adopt the nomenclature but just don't because they think everyone else doesn't want to.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

I think a poll would be a good idea. Maybe with the options of:
Full adoption
Partial adoption (parentheses nomenclature)
No adoption
Apathy


----------



## bruce (Feb 23, 2007)

*Nomenclature.*

Being part of the "orchid" community longer then the "frog" community where nomenclature changes continually, for referance, what they had always done was use both names, the replacement being in parenthesis, for clarification. It made for easier cross referencing by computer additionally. 
Personally I say go with the new names. With change comes clarification.
B.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

Here is another vote for adopting it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

On some level, I'm not sure why there is a vote to consider whether we adopt it or not as the hobby really has little say in the whole thing... 
As it looks, most of those changes may be valid but we don't know which will be or will not be for the most part. 
The best option is to use the parentheses and see how it goes.. this allows people to get familar with the new nomenclature... 

Ed


----------

