twistedfisher
New member
So got a bunch of these little gems in today
WORMS!!!! CHARGE!!!!!!
WORMS!!!! CHARGE!!!!!!
Caudata.org: Newts and Salamanders Portal
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Did you know that registered users see fewer ads? Register today!
-
Did you know that registered users see fewer ads? Register today!
Jfbn arrived
- Thread starter twistedfisher
- Start date
Coastal Groovin
Active member
OMG Wild caught animals from Kingsnake you horrible person......LMAO Nice looking animals. Good luck with them.
Sawyer
New member
Great looking newts.
FrogEyes
Active member
FYI, I made an inquiry on these, and they're reportedly from Kyushu. Two species occur on Kyushu, one potentially named Cynops immaculiventris, and the other unnamed. Dubois and Raffaelli recently resurrected Cynops immaculiventris, but in the absence of type specimens, no neotype, and a vague type locality that includes two species, I think this is premature. The unnamed lineage also occurs on Shikoku and southern Honshu.
gar4016
Member
I have purchased some of these same animals as I've been looking for JFB's for years. They were in excellent health and I am looking forward to moving them out of quarantine.
I was told they were collected from Kyushu though the bellies look more like the sasayame race to me(at least going by caudata culture).
I was told they were collected from Kyushu though the bellies look more like the sasayame race to me(at least going by caudata culture).
Neotenic_Jaymes
Active member
I purchased a pair a few weeks ago and they arrived in great shape. Currently in quarantine. They do look like (sasayame). I already have some sasayame and they look very much the same especially the belly color design.
twistedfisher
New member
I agree and was given the same info as well
Yeah mine are chillin gobbling black worms like no tomorrow!
FrogEyes
Active member
There is a lot of overlap in color and pattern among Japanese newts. While there seem to be at least four fairly well-defined species, the fact that color, pattern, behavior, and various genes do not align with one another perfectly is probably a big reason why several decades of research have still not resulted in a split. Suffice to say, if they look sorta like C.sasayamae, but come from Kyushu, they're not C.sasayamae. Likewise, all C.sasayamae may not look like C.sasayamae.
As near I can tell, the majority of "Tohoku" and "Kanto", as well as some "Chubu" or "intermediate" populations would be Cynops pyrrhogaster.
Most "Sasayama" and some "Chubu" and perhaps "Hiroshima" would be Cynops sasayamae.
"Atsumi" are problematic, because they may be extinct. Preserved specimens could be genetically tested if they exist.
"Hiroshima", "Shikoku", some Kyushu populations, and some southern "Sasayama" populations could be Cynops immaculiventris, Cynops shataukokensis, or unnamed.
South coast populations of Kyushu could be Cynops immaculiventris or unnamed.
In addition, various unique populations could be regarded as distinct species, even without significant genetic differences, if they are reproductively isolated and simply haven't had time to develop detectable genomic differences.
The correct origins and genetic and physical identities of all of these names, as well as the names typicus and subcristatus, need to be verified, due to vague or conflicting information. Viz - C.shataukokensis was described from China, but is suspected to have originated from Hiroshima. Both C.pyrrhogaster and C.pyrrhogaster subcristatus have been restricted to both Tokyo and Nagasaki, locations which have different species. C.immaculiventris is described from Kyushu, an island with two species, and lacks type specimens. pyrrhogaster, subcristatus, and immaculiventris are all old names, so despite questionable origins, they potentially override the recent and more precise names shataukokensis and sasayamae. It's something of a headache to work out, but maybe that's just this head cold.
As near I can tell, the majority of "Tohoku" and "Kanto", as well as some "Chubu" or "intermediate" populations would be Cynops pyrrhogaster.
Most "Sasayama" and some "Chubu" and perhaps "Hiroshima" would be Cynops sasayamae.
"Atsumi" are problematic, because they may be extinct. Preserved specimens could be genetically tested if they exist.
"Hiroshima", "Shikoku", some Kyushu populations, and some southern "Sasayama" populations could be Cynops immaculiventris, Cynops shataukokensis, or unnamed.
South coast populations of Kyushu could be Cynops immaculiventris or unnamed.
In addition, various unique populations could be regarded as distinct species, even without significant genetic differences, if they are reproductively isolated and simply haven't had time to develop detectable genomic differences.
The correct origins and genetic and physical identities of all of these names, as well as the names typicus and subcristatus, need to be verified, due to vague or conflicting information. Viz - C.shataukokensis was described from China, but is suspected to have originated from Hiroshima. Both C.pyrrhogaster and C.pyrrhogaster subcristatus have been restricted to both Tokyo and Nagasaki, locations which have different species. C.immaculiventris is described from Kyushu, an island with two species, and lacks type specimens. pyrrhogaster, subcristatus, and immaculiventris are all old names, so despite questionable origins, they potentially override the recent and more precise names shataukokensis and sasayamae. It's something of a headache to work out, but maybe that's just this head cold.
twistedfisher
New member
Nope i got a head ache trying to digest that all
gar4016
Member
I would note the thing I found unique about the individuals that I received were the broken dotted red lines on either side that stretch from the paratoid glands potentially back to the middle of the tail. These can be seen in the first, second and fourth pictures posted by twistedfisher. This is a bit variable in the individuals I received, but unique compared to other adult C. pyrrhogaster adults I've seen in person.
It seems to me that what we call C. pyrrhogaster with further investigation could be split up into multiple species either by genetic differences or simply by geographic isolation. Is there anyone currently trying update the classification status of this "species"?
It seems to me that what we call C. pyrrhogaster with further investigation could be split up into multiple species either by genetic differences or simply by geographic isolation. Is there anyone currently trying update the classification status of this "species"?
Yahilles
Member
Honestly, FrogEyes, what's the point of describing all this INCOMPLETE info to us? Unless there is some new clear classification it makes no sense to say "the species had been split but there are tons of not-yet-described species/subspecies which we neither don't know how to tell apart nor if they're species, subspecies, races or single populations." Even though i like to be correct with nomenculature, i'd rather stick to C. pyrrhogaster with data localities/races than try to adapt to "shapes of ideas" of scientists who haven't finished their works yet. People should just keep bloodlines without mixing stuff from different localities and that would be okay for now.
FrogEyes
Active member
In point of fact though, changes have ALREADY been proposed, namely the elevation of Cynops immaculiventris to species status. I favor REJECTING that change right now, because that particular name is based on a "locality" with two species, there are no type specimens, and there is no positive way to confirm what the name belongs to at this time.
On the other hand however, I think people SHOULD be aware of forthcoming changes, without necessarily jumping into them. That way they are 1) not shocked when the changes are made, 2) don't adopt changes that are premature and possibly in error, and 3) are more inclined to obtain, maintain, and keep separate lineages which may not be of the same species. At this point I am pointing out that newts of Kyushu are not Cynops pyrrhogaster in the strict sense, although they are members of the complex; nor are they C.sasayamae, despite their appearance.
On the other hand however, I think people SHOULD be aware of forthcoming changes, without necessarily jumping into them. That way they are 1) not shocked when the changes are made, 2) don't adopt changes that are premature and possibly in error, and 3) are more inclined to obtain, maintain, and keep separate lineages which may not be of the same species. At this point I am pointing out that newts of Kyushu are not Cynops pyrrhogaster in the strict sense, although they are members of the complex; nor are they C.sasayamae, despite their appearance.
They have been known or suspected to be multiple species for many years. They have been, and continue to be, under study for decades. I suspect we won't have to wait much longer for formal changes. The latest study has a publication date of March 2013, the first appears to have been published in 1956. Note that Ensatina has a comparable, and I think longer, history of taxonomic confusion, with little hope of resolution for a few years yet.
gar4016
Member
I ask about the taxonomic status of these animals for multiple reasons. I for one am genuinely interested in the taxonomic status of the animals I keep and in general I like to know as much about them as possible. So while it may not be practical at the moment to know of any future changes in their status, it is fun to know the latest news.
As a breeder at the same time, functionally I agree with Yahilles's statement that we should refrain from mixing bloodlines in a "species" like this. I think that animals with locality/origin data are more valuable to the hobby than those without, especially in a species situation like this.
As a breeder at the same time, functionally I agree with Yahilles's statement that we should refrain from mixing bloodlines in a "species" like this. I think that animals with locality/origin data are more valuable to the hobby than those without, especially in a species situation like this.
Yahilles
Member
Could you please upload/link "Cynops sasayamae" species description paper? I checked the taxonomy forum here and found no such thing.
michael
2010 Research Grant Donor
What would you call them? Cynops sp. Kyushu?
FrogEyes
Active member
The description of C.sasayamae appears here:
Mertens, R., 1969. Ueber die Rassen des Feuerbauchmolches (Triturus pyrrhogaster) und ihre wissenschaftlichen Namen. Die Aquarien- und Terrarien-Zeitschrift (DATZ), 22:97, 114-117.
I don't have the paper. The type locality reported by Frost is "Type locality: "Tottori, Inaba, Honshu [Island]", Japan", which is specific enough to be certain which lineage it pertains to and to know that no other names apply to it. A subspecies description is perfectly equal to a species description, so in this case, all that remains is for formal elevation of the name. The name was recently re-validated as a subspecies, but why they didn't elevate it when they DID elevate C.immaculiventris, is a mystery to me, given the poverty of evidence around the latter name.
Mertens, R., 1969. Ueber die Rassen des Feuerbauchmolches (Triturus pyrrhogaster) und ihre wissenschaftlichen Namen. Die Aquarien- und Terrarien-Zeitschrift (DATZ), 22:97, 114-117.
I don't have the paper. The type locality reported by Frost is "Type locality: "Tottori, Inaba, Honshu [Island]", Japan", which is specific enough to be certain which lineage it pertains to and to know that no other names apply to it. A subspecies description is perfectly equal to a species description, so in this case, all that remains is for formal elevation of the name. The name was recently re-validated as a subspecies, but why they didn't elevate it when they DID elevate C.immaculiventris, is a mystery to me, given the poverty of evidence around the latter name.
That might be the solution, given that we don't know where on Kyushu they originated, whether they originated from the same locality, or whether they consist of more than one species. The trouble is still that "Kyushu" is too vague, especially since we know two species occur there. As a 'locality', it's essentially useless, since it doesn't enable you to know what you have, beyond eliminating some species NOT found there.