Hello,

I've heard that subgenus Chamaeleo (Trioceros) changed into an own genus, now they are called just Trioceros... . For example Chamaeleo (Trioceros) bitaeniatus = Trioceros bitaeniatus.

Does anybody have the pdf file for this change ?
I've just find this one: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/f/z02079p068f.pdf

Best regards

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.

__________________
Life is what you make of it.

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

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

__________________
Christopher V. Anderson
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Integrative Biology
University of South Florida
cvanders@mail.usf.edu
Professional Website; Chameleons! Online E-Zine; Chameleon Care & Information Center (CCIC)

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

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.

__________________
Jackson's chameleon article: http://www.chameleonnews.com/10JulManchen.html

Thanks, Chris! Hopefully I'll have time to read it in the next week and contribute something useful here.

Where can it be found? I'd love to read it.