Chamaeleo (Trioceros) Now Genus Trioceros

[Brad]

Is this an accepted change among the scientific community? I was going to make some minor modifications to compensate and thought I would ask first.

 

[eisentrauti]

Yes, your cristatus are now just Trioceros cristatus

 

[merumontanus]

Yes, your cristatus are now just Trioceros cristatus

Hey Benny, I think you mean the other Brad...

Fabián

 

[eisentrauti]

Oh, you right, sorry

 

[merumontanus]

Is this an accepted change among the scientific community? I was going to make some minor modifications to compensate and thought I would ask first.

I would suspect the new upgrade to full genus has not yet been widely accepted by the international community, much less by governmental agencies which take longer to update or adhere to new changes-- just look at the continued exportation of hundreds of thousands of R. brevicaudatus and temporalis as R. kerstenii (as clearly seen in their respective CITES documents). Nonetheless, the findings are compelling enough to warrant justification of "informal" use, in my opinion, though others may disagree.

On the other hand, it is (and has been) appropriate to drop the genus altogether, if so desired, when writing taxa classified under a subgenus, and use the subgeneric name independently, along with the specific and subspecific epithets.

So, Chamaeleo (Trioceros) jacksonii merumontanus could be written as Trioceros jacksonii merumontanus, even if the subgeneric name weren't upgraded to full genus (though this still would not suggest any changes to the Trioceros subgenus).

Nonetheless, this upgrade represents a step forward (among others such as the recent Rhampholeon and Kinyongia revisions) toward our better understanding of the taxon as a whole.

Cheers,

Fabián