Well first, it's not a name change. This morphology was not previously included in the variation or the range of T.kweichowensis, and when it appeared it was widely treated as an undescribed species. As such, the first valid name applied to it is the most appropriate, until and unless proven otherwise. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, the only appropriate name is T.yangi.
Technically it IS a name change as people have been calling them "T.cf.kweichowensis" for years now (I know what "cf" stands for, like you explained down below but it's a (Vague, I know) name that was and has been known by), you even proposed that they should be named "T.liangshanensis" I believe as a temporary measure? lol
But there is NO evidence to suggest T.yangi should be used, you have failed to pass on any information that apparently you have, as you said below "
I have the original paper with English summary as well as an English language paper on the new species." If you do, would I please be able to view this and share this paper so I and others can see the information for ourselves rather than taking yours (and other people's) word for it?
I would agree that some of these descriptions are a royal pain, being published in obscure, expensive, or otherwise difficult to read works, but if properly published in any language, they're valid. God knows when I'll be able to evaluate the cases for Hypselotriton orientalis qianshan, Qiantriton, or Liangshantriton [which I know has no diagnosis, although technically none is required beyond inclusion of a type species].
That's fair enough, I can understand that, However I haven't said anywhere that they aren't valid have I, merely that no one other than you (that I know of), currently has read this paper. Why does everyone just have to simply follow it blindly, which let's be honest they are as no one here probably has read this, hence the reason behind this thread.
I would be interested in finding out the above to so please let us know when you are able to evaluate them
I have the original paper with English summary as well as an English language paper on the new species. In addition, I have considered this to be a distinct species since I first saw them several years ago. I am using information *I* have read or observed myself.
Like I have said above, if you have them then please share them, I have been looking for them for a long time and can't seem to find them myself... And in all honesty they look barely anything like T.kweichowensis, you can see that without looking at data that they are something else, but before the T.yangi paper was released there were several theories as to what they were, some people even said that they could of been Hybrid species.
If you are using information that *you* have read or observed yourself, I yet again ask why you haven't shared the actual paper for everyone that wants to know about this species wants to read? I even asked you to share the paper on the T.ziegleri species but you never bothered to reply to that either, Serge kindly passed the information on to me which I was incredibly grateful for lol
I quote you from the original thread by DrWill that you said
" the entire article is in Chinese and lacks illustrations. There is virtually no usable data if you don't read Chinese." So where is this English paper you said you have on the new species because you also said "I have some ideas to make the information more accessible in the west, which I am presenting to Mian." Which you clearly haven't as no one really seems to have it?
Plus, you don't really need to read it yourself. If you accept in the first place that they ARE different, then all you really need to know is that the unnamed one was formally described and named.
Ummm how do you work that one out, I don't doubt that they are a new species but I doubt what you and other people seem to know about them from the papers in question until I have Read this myself. I want to read it and would enjoy reading it so I can see the information first hand with my own two eyes and not yours or anyone else.
Doe that mean I accept or Don't accept the naming? No it says that I would like to read it to find out for myself instead of hear it second hand from you who seems to have the papers but won't pass them on by either posting them on here or any other way.
No, and no.
Why should anything be resubmitted? A species description in Chinese is as valid as one in English or any other language.
Excuse me but did I say that it wasn't valid because of the language it was in? No I didn't so how did you come up with that conclusion? You said, and I quote
"I know that Hou Mian submitted a description for T.cf.kweichowensis, which was returned pending more comparative data." That means from what I make of it, that it was returned to Hou Mian?
Exactly - and if you accept that they ARE two separate species, then you are constrained to using the first and only names applied to each, rather than treating them as if they have not been formally described.
So what if I accept they are, I still want to see this evidence (I have repeatedly asked for this now) to prove this, I would rather treat them as an unsubscribed species than name them something that I have not read about. What's the problem with that?
Yep. Any time I have seen true specimens from Quizhou/NE Yunnan, they've been more like $100 from the importer, rather than $20
Yeah I highly agree with you, the true species of T.kweichowensis are normally priced around about £80 in the UK and roughly that at the Hamm shows. I saw the "T.yangi" species for roughly 20 euros lol
If you'd like a copy of Mian's paper, let me know. Maybe you know someone who can read it
Also I completely forgot about this, which I did take as an insult at the time and forgot to reply about it. So, I shall do now for you;
Yes, I would like the Chinese or English copy please, if it's in Chinese then not a problem because I have one or two friends that are Chinese and would happily translate it for me. So yes, please
