Taxonomy changes - Frost et al. 2006

[John]

This is from the CNAH. The full page can be found here. The full article is here. The synonymization of Dicamptodontidae and Ambystomatidae is rather interesting, i.e. the two genera Ambystoma and Dicamptodon are now both Ambystomatidae again (they were previously separated). Aside from that, I'm having a hard time looking at American toads though and not seeing them as Bufo (sorry folks).

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Amphibians Arranged[/FONT]

CHANGES TO THE TAXONOMY OF NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS

In their recent publication, Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) recommended the following:

1) The Family Dicamptodontidae (Tihen, 1958) is synonymized with the Family Ambystomatidae (Gray, 1850).

2) The genus Haideotriton Carr, 1939, is synonymized with the genus Eurycea Rafinesque, 1822, resulting in the new combination Eurycea wallacei (Carr, 1939).

3) The Family Ascaphidae (Fejérváry, 1923) is synonymized with the Family Leiopelmatidae (Mivart, 1869).

4) As part of the partitioning of the genus Eleutherodactylus, the genus Syrrhophus (Cope, 1878) is resurrected and, along with the genus Craugastor (Cope, 1862), is placed in the Family Brachycephalidae (Günther, 1858), as follows (specific taxa match those currently contained in the CNAH checklist):

Craugastor augusti (Dùges, 1879)
Craugastor augusti cactorum (Taylor, 1938)
Craugastor augusti latrans (Cope, 1880)
Syrrhophus cystignathoides (Cope, 1877)
Syrrhophus cystignathoides campi (Stejneger, 1914)
Syrrhophus guttilatus (Cope, 1879)
Syrrhophus marnockii (Cope, 1878)

5) Partitioning of the genus Bufo worldwide results in the recognition of three genera of these anurans in North America and Canada, as follows (specific taxa match those currently contained in the CNAH checklist):

Genus Anaxyrus Tschudi, 1845

Anaxyrus americanus (Holbrook, 1836)
Anaxyrus americanus americanus (Holbrook, 1836)
Anaxyrus americanus charlesmithi (Bragg, 1954 )
Anaxyrus baxteri (Porter, 1968)
Anaxyrus boreas (Baird and Girard, 1852)
Anaxyrus boreas boreas (Baird and Girard, 1852)
Anaxyrus boreas halophilus (Baird and Girard, 1853)
Anaxyrus californicus (Camp, 1915)
Anaxyrus canorus (Camp, 1916)
Anaxyrus cognatus (Say in James, 1823)
Anaxyrus debilis (Girard, 1854)
Anaxyrus debilis debilis (Girard, 1854)
Anaxyrus debilis insidior (Girard, 1854)
Anaxyrus exsul (Myers, 1942)
Anaxyrus fowleri (Hinckley, 1882)
Anaxyrus hemiophrys (Cope, 1886)
Anaxyrus houstonensis (Sanders, 1953)
Anaxyrus microscaphus (Cope, 1866)
Anaxyrus nelsoni (Stejneger, 1893)
Anaxyrus punctatus (Baird and Girard, 1852)
Anaxyrus quercicus (Holbrook, 1840)
Anaxyrus retiformis (Sanders and Smith, 1951)
Anaxyrus speciosus (Girard, 1854)
Anaxyrus terrestris (Bonnaterre, 1789)
Anaxyrus woodhousii (Girard, 1854)
Anaxyrus woodhousii australis (Shannon and Lowe, 1955)
Anaxyrus woodhousii velatus (Bragg and Sanders, 1951)
Anaxyrus woodhousii woodhousii (Girard, 1854)

Genus Chaunus Wagler, 1828

Chaunus marinus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Genus Cranopsis Cope, 1875

Cranopsis alvaria (Girard in Baird, 1849)
Cranopsis nebulifer (Girard, 1854)

6) Partitioning of the genus Rana worldwide results in the recognition of two genera of these frogs in North America and Canada, as follows (specific taxa match those currently contained in the CNAH checklist):

Genus Lithobates Fitzinger, 1843

Lithobates areolatus (Baird and Girard, 1852)
Lithobates areolatus areolatus (Baird and Girard, 1852)
Lithobates areolatus circulosus (Rice and Davies, 1878)
Lithobates berlandieri (Baird, 1859)
Lithobates blairi (Mecham, Littlejohn, Oldham, Brown & Brown, 1973)
Lithobates capito (LeConte, 1855)
Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw, 1802)
Lithobates chiricahuensis (Platz & Mecham, 1979)
Lithobates clamitans (Latreille, 1801)
Lithobates clamitans clamitans (Latreille, 1801)
Lithobates clamitans melanotus (Rafinesque, 1820)
Lithobates grylio (Stejneger, 1901)
Lithobates heckscheri (Wright, 1924)
Lithobates okaloosae (Moler, 1985)
Lithobates onca (Cope, 1875)
Lithobates palustris (LeConte, 1825)
Lithobates pipiens (Schreber, 1782)
Lithobates septentrionalis (Baird, 1854)
Lithobates sevosus (Goin & Netting, 1940)
Lithobates sphenocephalus (Cope, 1886)
Lithobates sphenocephalus sphenocephalus (Cope, 1886)
Lithobates sphenocephalus utricularius (Harlan, 1825)
Lithobates subaquavocalis (Platz, 1993)
Lithobates sylvaticus (LeConte, 1825)
Lithobates tarahumarae (Boulenger, 1917)
Lithobates virgatipes (Cope, 1891)
Lithobates yavapaiensis (Platz & Frost, 1984)

Genus Rana Linnaeus, 1758

Rana aurora Baird & Girard, 1852
Rana boylii Baird, 1854
Rana cascadae Slater, 1939
Rana draytonii Baird & Girard, 1852
Rana luteiventris Thompson, 1913
Rana muscosa Camp, 1917
Rana pretiosa Baird & Girard, 1853

*****

CNAH Note: The CNAH common and scientific names list, as displayed on the CNAH web site, has adopt the familial changes proposed in Frost et al. (2006). The generic changes are logged in the web site commentary (note the red icon to the right of a name -- it denotes that commentary since 2002 is present for that taxon) and will be adopted (or not, based on peer scrutiny) in the sixth edition of "Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians" (Collins & Taggart, in preparation). [/FONT]

 

[Kaysie]

Rana clamitans is much more fun to say than Lithobates.

Rana is a huge genus, and probably should be divvied up, but it's always hard to adjust to changes.

 

[Abrahm]

Rana is quite large, but what about Eleutherodactylus? What was once the largest vertebrate genus probably deserved to be split.

 

[Kaysie]

I guess I'll always be a lumper, not a splitter. I am glad Dicamptodon is back in Ambystomatidae. I always thought it belonged that way.

So historically speaking, how often do they split things up, just to lump them back together again?

 

[Greatwtehunter]

Rana clamitans is much more fun to say

Hahaha that sounds like something you would need a cream for.

Seriously though, how long in general does it take for the scientific community to accept the new changes, i.e. are the changes effective immediately or is there a grace period so to speak?

 

[John]

In the scientific community, it depends. In this study's case there are so many well known names attached to it that I think we can consider it accepted fact. Contrast this with the guys in China who say there is no difference between Tylototriton shanjing and T. verrucosus and that the two species should be reunited as T. verrucosus. I don't think anyone's really swallowing that.

 

[Jennewt]

I saw this back in 2006. I've been waiting for any of the authoritative websites to lump Dicamptodontids into Ambystomatidae. The only place I've seen that change happen is the CNAH site. I've considered lumping them in Caudata Culture. Any opinions?

 

[taherman]

David Wake posted this to PARC shortly after the Frost et al. paper was published:

Taxonomy of amphibians is currently in a state of flux. We are using
a traditional taxonomy. Major changes have been proposed by Frost et
al. (2006, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.) and advocated by CNAH. We
advise caution. Virtually all recommended changes are subjective and
optional. Stable taxonomies are in everyone's interest. A
reasonable compromise would be to treat proposed new names for Rana
and Bufo as subgenera, pending further review. Such a move would be
perfectly acceptable, even to those who wish for strict phylogenetic
taxonomies. Furthermore, AmphibiaWeb continues to recognize
Ascaphidae and Dicamptodontidae, because these have been separated
from sister taxa Leiopelmatidae and Ambystomatidae for more than 100
million years and they are morphologically and biologically very
different kinds of organisms. Watch for other reactions to the
proposed name changes.

I tend towards being a lumper like Kaysie and am not at all quick to jump on this bandwagon. This taxonomic revision is not wholeheartedly accepted by the herpetological community. Generic changes are very subjective and I do not understand the rationale behind a sudden splitting of genera with hundreds of years of scientific history behind them based on patterns in a limited suite of genetic markers.

-Tim

 

[John]

I too don't favour the separations here. David Wake is a heavy hitter but there are several heavy hitters on that author's list too. I note that Kevin Zippel used "Anaxyrus" in this message.

 

[wouter]

We often make up our opinion on what were used too - to me Anaxyrus also seems strange, although you have to keep in mind the long isolation between toads in Europe and North-America. Amphibians are morphological very conservative, and certainly the European and North American species show quite some examples of convergent evolution (e.g. the Pelobates sp. vs the Spea species, which are genetically really different).

I personally think that in much of these cases subgenera are the most convenient, so for the North American Rana, Bufo etc. Changes like Epidalea calamita and Pseudoepidalea viridis for B. calamita and B. viridis as proposed a few years back only create confusion.

 

[FrogEyes]

Rana is quite large, but what about Eleutherodactylus? What was once the largest vertebrate genus probably deserved to be split.

This is two years later that I'm replying, but to answer the question, it has been. Frost began the process by including it in Brachycephalidae. Since then, it has been partitioned into five families, along with a smattering of previously recognized genera. These families are grouped as Terraranae: Ceuthomantidae, Strabomantidae, Brachycephalidae, Eleutherodactylidae, and Craugastoridae.

I personally think that in much of these cases subgenera are the most convenient, so for the North American Rana, Bufo etc. Changes like Epidalea calamita and Pseudoepidalea viridis for B. calamita and B. viridis as proposed a few years back only create confusion.

Only confusing if you're unwilling or unable to review the changes and why they were made. In most cases subgenera are simply unacceptable - many of the new genera are not related to Bufo [or Rana] and are in fact related to other genera which are already widely accepted. Since Linnaean nomenclature was created in part to classify organisms according to the best understanding of their natural relationships, it is inappropriate to use names which fail to do this. Most of the Asian "Bufo", for instance, are related to Pedostibes, Ansonia, Phrynoidis, etc. The African "Bufo" tend to be related to Capensibufo, Werneria, Mertensophryne, etc. To call these Bufo is to hide their true relationships. If one wishes to stick with names purely because they're familiar, all frogs would be Rana and all lizards would be Lacerta.

 

[Steve B]

I have a question related to this that may be too stupid for such scholarly caudata people:
Why are Axolotls in the ambystoma genus when they are aquatic?

 

[Kaysie]

Axolotls are neotenic. All ambystomatid larvae are aquatic, axolotls just never go through metamorphosis.

 

[FrogEyes]

A note on the status of Dicamptodontidae:

While at present only a single genus and four northwestern species are recognized in this group, there are in fact several extinct genera related to Dicamptodon, from as far away as Europe. It makes a certain amount of sense to lump Ambystoma and Dicamptodon into a single family when you only consider living species, but when you consider the extinct ones, you have two groups with overlapping distribution and greater diversity, which adds greater credence to treating them as separate families with distinct evolutionary pathways.