Chamaeleo (Trioceros) Now Genus Trioceros

Interesting.

I find it kind of frustrating just how long it takes for a species to be recognized by science. I know of instances (not Cham related) that took over 8 yrs for proper Identification to be established. You would think that with the internet and Genetic testing they would be able to streamline this process. As of right now it's terribly analog.

Late 08 Brazil put a ban on the export of any non Identified species of pleco. Well there are over 400 known species of pleco, yet in comparison there are only a handful that are recognized by science. The others are still waiting for the process to be completed.

Considering how large the Chameleon Genus is, I would imagine there are still a few that are in the same situation.
 
In South Africa are numerous Bradypodions which are undescribed yet and I believe that in Madagascar and Central Africa still some species waiting for their discovery :)
 
eisentrauti said:
In South Africa are numerous Bradypodions which are undescribed yet and I believe that in Madagascar and Central Africa still some species waiting for their discovery :)
Click to expand...


Let's hope they can hang around long enough TO be discovered. :(
 
Benny - I have a PDF of the paper.

Pure - You seem to misunderstand the paper. There were no new species described in this paper and all that was done was that a group of species that were previously grouped into a subgenus of the genus Chamaeleo were elevated to full genus level. This type of work comes along as more information is gathered about the relationships between species and is an ever changing science. We already distinguished between the two subgenera of Chamaeleo as "Chamaeleo (Chamaeleo) sp." and "Chamaeleo (Trioceros) sp." but now it is simply Chamaeleo sp. and Trioceros sp.

Regarding the description of new species, unfortunately CSI and some other TV shows are pretty misleading with regard to the time and amount of work that goes into genetic testing. It is a long process that can go wrong in many steps and is not nearly as simple and quick as TV makes us all think. Additionally, morphological examinations and measurements is very meticulous and precise work. Providing enough evidence for a new species, let alone a new genus, takes genetic and morphological examination of a large number of species, not just a couple specimens from the new species. The paper in question, for example, look at molecular data from 80 different animals and that was just to elevate an existing subgenus to a genus. Once all the molecular and morphological data has been collected, it has to be analyzed in a process that can take significantly longer then collecting the data to start with took. Then writing the descriptions and papers is extremely time consuming and takes a lot of work and then it needs to be reviewed prior to publication and often reworked. It is a very time consuming process that can take years. On top of that, there are not too many people who work on the taxonomy of each group of organisms and many regions where new species are known from are dangerous and collecting the data needed is difficult.

While its always frustrating that not every species is described the moment they are discovered, there is always going to be a lag time on describing species and there is probably always going to be species left to describe, particularly in the invertebrate arena.

Chris
 
Oh I understand fully what all is involved and I didn't misunderstand what has happened in this case. I was merely making a statement about the process as a whole.

I know genetic testing isn't any where near as simple as they make it look on tv. But still one would think that it would help to speed up this process.

But thank you for the clarification.

I guess, from what I understand the writing of the paper and sending it to a university and to piers for review then back to the author for any fixes then back to the uni for final analysis, is about the most time consuming part. Couldn't pretty much all of this process be bypassed with a simple (yet complex) DNA test and comparison? A paper on visual characteristics would be needed but DNA would certainly clear any and all doubts about the taxonomy of the species.
 
Ehh, not exactly, it gets a lot more complicated and fuzzy. There is a lot of individual variation, population variation and species variation that does not necessarily mean they are different species. You need to test specific DNA markers and compare them to different species and multiple individuals. Then you need to do statistical analysis of those data sets to verify that they are statistically different to an acceptable degree for a new species. This also needs to include morphological and distribution data because species definitions are not perfect and there are numerous criteria to define a species by. This type of analysis can take a very long time. Then it is required that the species be described in a certified peer reviewed publication and there is a lot of procedure that must be outlined in these publications to make sure that the science and analysis behind your conclusion of a new species is based on sound scientific evidence. Typically people know pretty quickly if they have a new species or not but accumulating the required scientific evidence to justify it according to taxonomic rules takes a long time.

Chris
 
eisentrauti said:
I've heard that subgenus Chamaeleo (Trioceros) changed into an own genus, now they are called just Trioceros...
Click to expand...

It's about time! ;) Chris, could I get a copy of that .pdf, too? Pure, Townsend and Larson published a paper on the genetic relationships of the chameleon family in 2002.
 
Thanks, Chris! Hopefully I'll have time to read it in the next week and contribute something useful here. :rolleyes:
 
to Chris, eisentrauti or anyone else that knows... What journals or sources do you subscribe/have access to? I have access to many online sources through my university, but the searches I've done on reptile (particularly chameleon) subjects generally yield few results. Any info is greatly appreciated.

-Dan
 
I personally have made the same experiences as you. From my university I also don't get any access to such magazines :eek:
So I'm always on the search for friendly people like Chris who can help with such problems
 
Pure - I don't know about the process in herptiles and plecos, but know a considerable bit about it in plants and fungi. Quite a lot more molecular (DNA) work has been done in fungi than in most animals, because there are considerably fewer morphological features on which to base descriptions, but a big part of the process (and delay) is still in seeing whether the species in question has even been described before. A lot of nomenclatural confusion results when proper literature searches haven't been done, and the same organism gets named and described several times. One specimen may have been found, described and validly published - in 1872, in Kamchatka, by somebody publishing in a specialist Russian language journal of limited distribution. First, you have to even be aware to look at this journal, track down the article and, if necessary, obtain translation. Suppose you find your plant/fungus/pleco/lizard in Java. It matches the description of the 1872 Kamchatka specimen. Is it the same? - Historically, there's been a lot of trouble occasioned by European taxonomists calling things they found on other continents by European names because they looked similar, but in some cases species really do have worldwide distribution. Then there are some potential difficulties with DNA - at the time of description, species are supposed to have an associated "type specimen" deposited and kept for perpetuity where any researcher can examine it and make comparisons. For plants and fungi, these are usually dried specimens, and one can sometimes still obtain sequencable (albeit degraded) DNA from them; a pleco would likely be pickled in formaldehyde; lizards would be stored in a variety of manners (pickled; taxidermy specimens), none very friendly to DNA.
That's almost certainly more than anybody wanted to know, but I'm a taxonomy and nomenclature nerd. ("Nomenclaturists are a bunch of frusterated, lawyer-type people who accidentally ended up in science." Jim Groth, a onetime professor of mine.)
 
Klemins said:
to Chris, eisentrauti or anyone else that knows... What journals or sources do you subscribe/have access to? I have access to many online sources through my university, but the searches I've done on reptile (particularly chameleon) subjects generally yield few results. Any info is greatly appreciated.

-Dan
Click to expand...

Dan - Most Universities have online subscriptions to a lot of different journals, particularly Research I Universities. It really depends on the University. When I was at Cornell, there wasn't much I couldn't get. USF has less itself but if there is anything they don't have, I can fill out a request and they can get just about anything from anywhere. As an example, I wanted a copy of a paper published in 1828 in "The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy" (probably wouldn't be called common) and it was delivered to me as a pdf within 3 days. There there are ever papers you are looking for, I'd be glad to try to help.

eisentrauti said:
Does also have sb the paper where from Klaver where the subgenus Trioceros was established ?
Click to expand...

Benny - I do have Klaver & Boehme, 1986 but not as a PDF, only as a bound hard copy. It is pretty long (64 pages) so it wouldn't be easy to scan and make into a pdf.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jjherps
Questions about Trioceros sp. in captivity
Replies
2
Views
460
JacksJill
JacksJill
For Toby
My first post! Getting my first chameleon on Saturday! Last minute questions...
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
crosscutts
crosscutts
Jevin
Quick personal update
Replies
6
Views
802
ERKleRose
ERKleRose
S
New veiled care questions (asked correctly this time)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Speelman
S
nate65809
New Cham In India - 10 Q’s
Replies
8
Views
787
JacksJill
JacksJill
Back
Top Bottom