Why dont we call D.pumilio, O.pumilio? I propose...

[booboo]

Well I have been looking for an intern or other similar program to work with down in South America. I haven’t decided on one yet but with much of my research I have been quite familiar and prefer the term Oophaga for the obligatory egg feeder group. I know Europe has been calling the group Oophaga for a while now, and If it is widely accepted I wonder if we to as a dart frog community should switch over to the term Oophaga for the egg feeders.

Especially with pumilio, their egg feeding characterizes them separately from the other dendrobates and I personally think it would be a smart move. This would also require us to change histrionicus granuliferus and others to Oophaga as well. Unless I am missing something of importance as to why not to change the name... what do you guys/girls think, good idea bad idea?

[Onagro]

This is probably a good idea. It seems like scientist just used the genus of dendrobates to lump all dendrobatids together. If the new genus has been accepted around the world, why has the US been left out?

[defaced]

See this thread for the discussion surrounding that paper: http://dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19208

Bill's post on the fourth page would likely be the reason you don't hear these names in the states:

Originally Posted by elmoisfive

I think it's important to keep the perspective that this is one publication from one group of scientists and until thoroughly reviewed and validated (in this case agreed to I suppose) by the broader scientific community, it's a scientific communication and proposal, nothing more.

A key feature in science is independent verification. Something that I suspect will be a few years in coming.

Bill

Has anyone in the know heard anything about the status of the acceptance of this paper?

If you would like to read the paper (the primary link is dead), Kyle has hosted it and its link appears on the last page. It's a 119 meg file.

[Onagro]

Taxonomic revisions are always controversial. It may seem irritating with frogs, but try checking how many times megalosaurus was used as a genus dump for poorly understood dinos. (sorry for the paleo-rant)

Thanks for the link, the paper will be interesting!

[Afemoralis]

Several of the proposed name changes are sketchy from a taxonomic viewpoint, as hit on by the thread above. By all means, read the paper and come to your own conclusions- but I also urge you to try to find the original publication of the name "Oophaga". The rules regarding name precedence are resonably specific, but the distinction between publically published information, and reviewed literature is unclear. I personally don't buy into the validity of 'Oophaga' as a name, and the distinctions between the subgroups within Dendrobates. Defining a genus on the basis of a behavior such as egg feeding- notoriously plastic- seems poorly thought out- no matter how cool that behavior is.

Cheers,

Afemoralis

[NathalieB]

Hello,

just to let you know that the majority of people and organizations in Belgium and the Netherlands are still using the old names until a more definitive and generally accepted taxonomy is presented. It is clear to everybody that the current taxonomy cannot count on general consensus and a lot of adjustments will have to be made to correct some major flaws.
I would not say the new names are accepted here in Europe, but they are already being used by some people.

I personally prefer to stick to the old names as long as there isn’t a clear taxonomy that is accepted internationally. Using some names and then having to change them once again makes it only more confusing. You’ll end up with frogs being called 10 different names by 10 different people, like you see in the orchid world, because there will always be stubborn people sticking to the names they first learned.
I think we already have a hard enough time distinguishing between all the different morphs

kind regards,
Nathalie

[kyle1745]

When we started the care sheets we looked at the options and went with the hobby standard. Some countries or hobbiest choose to stick with the old names and some have gone with the latest. My take on it is that it may take some more research and another paper or so to prove the new naming. After some more acceptance it may start to work its way into the hobby. For now the list here is the accepted hobby names:
http://dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18038

[booboo]

It seemed appropraite to me because with the eggfeeders, their anatomy is different than those of other dendros. You know how the tadpoles have sack like stomachs oposed to spiraled so they can only digest egg proetins oposed to plant material and whatnot. It just makes sense to group them as Oophaga because of the oophagy needed to raise the tads. Plus with all the recent pum imports ir helps seperate them, however I understand (somewhat... :lol: ) why they remain to be called dendrobates.

[NathalieB]

I agree with you that the new taxonomy does make sense (specially the oophaga part) but I don't think you can adopt just pieces of the new taxonomy. to keep it simple I think it's all or nothing, and as for a lot of people "all" is not an option they can live with it's just "nothing" for the moment.

I am sure however that the new taxonomy will be adjusted and corrected and will be adopted by the community.

so we will be calling them oophaga pumilio in some time, but I don't see how it will make it simpeler to seperate them because the difference between a tinctorius and a pumilio is already very clear, although they are both called dendrobates. the problem is the difference between (for example) an esperanza and a darkland frog: are they variations in the same morph, are they differnt morphs? should they be mixed... that will remain difficult, even when they're called oophaga

[booboo]

Thats a bit of a different story, Then we need people down in South America taking photos of frogs and mthcing them with their locale and then deciding on an appropriate name.

I guess we can stick with dendrobates for now... :lol: