Taxonomy Discussion Thread

The Chacoan Mara is returned to its own genus = Pediolagus.
Integrative taxonomy of extant maras supports the recognition of the genera Pediolagus and Dolichotis within the Dolichotinae (Rodentia, Caviidae)

Denise H. Campo, Diego A. Caraballo, Guillermo H. Cassini, Sergio O. Lucero & Pablo Teta
Journal of Mammalogy June 2020: Vol. 101, No. 3: 817-834.
 
It's pretty old, but what's everyone's views on splitting giraffes into four distinct species? I think there's a good level of evidence to support it and I'm all down for the implied conservation efforts that could come from it. I think the IUCN still recognizes it as one species though.
Giraffes are four species, not one
 
Orangutan Flanges said:
It's pretty old, but what's everyone's views on splitting giraffes into four distinct species? I think there's a good level of evidence to support it and I'm all down for the implied conservation efforts that could come from it. I think the IUCN still recognizes it as one species though.
Giraffes are four species, not one
Click to expand...

It has been discussed before on this site and the general conclusion based on evidence is that there is for sure more than 1 species, but just how many depends on your view... Though the best evidence is for 3 or 4 separate species.

You might find this an interesting thread:
Ungulate taxonomy revisited: the evidence for the splits of G&G
 
TeaLovingDave said:
Not that this means much - they also refuse to recognise African Forest Elephant as a valid taxon.
Click to expand...
I'm not awfully familiar with their processes, but what generally convinces major groups such as this to declare new species? There's sufficient genetic evidence for both Forest Elephants and the northern, southern, masai, and reticulated giraffes so does it have to be more morphological?
 
Orangutan Flanges said:
I'm not awfully familiar with their processes, but what generally convinces major groups such as this to declare new species? There's sufficient genetic evidence for both Forest Elephants and the northern, southern, masai, and reticulated giraffes so does it have to be more morphological?
Click to expand...
For the IUCN, different taxonomic groups are covered by different taxonomists. Some groups are quickly lumped or split (often too quickly), while others are much slower. There are widely varying rates of updating of the groups as well. The African Elephant, for example, was last assessed in 2008 and they do mention that it probably consists of two separate species.

The Giraffe was last assessed in 2016, and they state that, with regards to the taxonomy, "Until an extensive reassessment of the taxonomic status of giraffes is completed, therefore, it is premature to alter the taxonomic status quo.".
 
I just recently learned that there is/was some debate over the scientific name of the Russell's Viper, because apparently when the name was first created, russellii was spelled russelii. Anyone have any articles they can link me to? I'd like to see why there's a debate in the first place.
 
SpinyLiving said:
I just recently learned that there is/was some debate over the scientific name of the Russell's Viper, because apparently when the name was first created, russellii was spelled russelii. Anyone have any articles they can link me to? I'd like to see why there's a debate in the first place.
Click to expand...
There's not much to the "debate" - what it says on the Wikipedia page for the species covers it.

The species was named after Dr Patrick Russell (with two Ls in his name) but the name was misspelled russelii (with only one L). There is a set of rules for nomenclature, one of which is that the original spelling of a scientific name for a species is retained. This can be overturned (e.g. Cacatua ducorpsii which was initially spelled ducropsii) but it is done through the rulings of the ICZN, not by individual authors / scientists / herpetologists changing the spelling of their own accord.
 
Chlidonias said:
There's not much to the "debate" - what it says on the Wikipedia page for the species covers it.

The species was named after Dr Patrick Russell (with two Ls in his name) but the name was misspelled russelii (with only one L). There is a set of rules for nomenclature, one of which is that the original spelling of a scientific name for a species is retained. This can be overturned (e.g. Cacatua ducorpsii which was initially spelled ducropsii) but it is done through the rulings of the ICZN, not by individual authors / scientists / herpetologists changing the spelling of their own accord.
Click to expand...

Just to expand on the point made by @Chlidonias, there are only a few situations in which an original spelling is changed. The main ones are

1) species or subspecies names that are adjectives have to match the Latin gender of the genus. For example, the Amur Tiger was originally named as Felis tigris altaicus (masculine), compared to the currently used Panthera tigris altaica (feminine). When the genus transfer occurred the species name didn't change because tigris is a noun, but the spelling of the subspecies name changed because it is an adjective.

2) the original name includes an "illegal" character like an accent or tilde, or

3) it is clear from the original description that the author meant to spell the name differently. In other words, the misspelling resulted from a printing/typing error rather than ignorance. In the case of Russell's viper, the original description always writes the guy's name as "Russel". The author clearly meant to spell it that way and didn't know or didn't bother to check that Russell's name ended in "LL". Therefore, the original spelling can't be changed.

In most situations the ICZN won't get involved if the rules in the code are clear. People are expected to work out the applicable rules on their own. Formal rulings generally take place when there is significant disagreement, many times because the disagreeing groups are basing their interpretations on separate parts of the code. In those cases, someone has to formally petition the ICZN to open a case, which can eventually lead to a binding ruling.
 
There's a paper out where the authors propose splitting Stoats (Mustela erminea) into three or four species.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13234

If you go to Figure 4 on page 7 there is a map showing the geographical divisions. They have used the names M. erminea for the one throughout Eurasia and into north-western America (Alaska); M. richardsonii for the one throughout northern North America (although divided on the map between "East" and "West"); and M. haidarum on the islands off western Canada. They say that haidarum is a species derived from hybridisation between the other two forms, followed by isolation on the islands.
 
Chlidonias said:
There's a paper out where the authors propose splitting Stoats (Mustela erminea) into three or four species.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13234

If you go to Figure 4 on page 7 there is a map showing the geographical divisions. They have used the names M. erminea for the one throughout Eurasia and into north-western America (Alaska); M. richardsonii for the one throughout northern North America (although divided on the map between "East" and "West"); and M. haidarum on the islands off western Canada. They say that haidarum is a species derived from hybridisation between the other two forms, followed by isolation on the islands.
Click to expand...

A proposed split here doesn't surprise me, but what does surprise me is only one species being recognized in the Old World, especially with those isolated Chinese and Japanese populations. I'm also interested in that seemingly isolated population of the Old World/Alaskan species embedded deep within the Canadian species range.

~Thylo
 
lintworm said:
The IUCN primate group are heavy splitters (unsurprisingly) with multiple species currently being recognized by them, that are most probably not valid (e.g. multiple titi monkeys).
Click to expand...
What titi monkeys would probably not be valid, according to you? And on what grounds?
 
lintworm said:
The species caligatus, dubius and stephennashi have all been shown to belong to the same species:

Phylogenetic relationships of the New World titi monkeys ( Callicebus ): first appraisal of taxonomy based on molecular evidence | Frontiers in Zoology | Full Text

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1855276554?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Click to expand...
there are indeed some doubts about these, but that still leaves us with 30+ species and a few others waiting for further investigations to see if they are indeed new species or just local variants. And large parts of the Amazon are still waiting for a taxonomist to be explored. I think that the number of saki monkeys will be (further) reduced, but there are also some variations of woolly and spider monkeys that need to be investigated. So I am expecting some descriptions of new species in the future. Most of the recent new species are not really a result of splitting, but more of new research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top