Tongues of three species of chameleon...

Ugh, this is one of those studies that should have never made it through peer review. Having studied the chameleon tongue for my dissertation, I was shocked to see this published. There are a ton of issues with the authors using completely incorrect terminology for the tongue and hyoid apparatus in chameleons, but more importantly looking at the methods and results there is also very evident issues with their identification of the species used in this study. In particular, Chamaeleo vulgaris is a synonym of Chamaeleo chamaeleon, so they only actually looked at 2 species (C. africanus and C. chamaeleon). Unfortunately, they also claim to have collected the C. vulgaris in "Sidi-barani, south of Egypt". The problem is, Sidi-barani (at least the only one I have been able to find) is on the northwest coast of Egypt (where C. chamaeleon does occur), but C. chamaeleon does not occur in the south of Egypt. So, either they have identified their specimens incorrectly (if the specimens were in fact collected in the south of Egypt), or all the differences they note between C. chamaeleon and C. vulgaris specimens (which is where most of the difference they note are observed) are just individual variation and not indicative of species level difference as they claim.

Chris
 
I always say I just post them and it's up to people to judge their worth....although I do try not to post ones that aren't good.
Absolutely, and its nice that you do! It can be difficult to critically analyze studies though if you aren't a specialist, so when I see one that I don't think is a good study, I try to chime in so others can see some of those issues with it.

Chris
 
What chameleons, if any, are found near Sidi-Barani then?
I know that in the 40's there were chameleons in that general area because they are mentioned in some of the war stories. They used them to catch flies and roaches.
 
Last edited:
What chameleons, if any, are found near Sidi-Barani then?
I know that in the 40's there were chameleons in that general area because they are mentioned in some of the war stories. They used them to catch flies and roaches.
If we are talking about the Sidi-Barani on the northwest Mediterranean coast of Egypt, that would be Chamaeleo chamaeleon. If there is another Sidi-Barani in south Egypt, that would have to be C. africanus. So either way they only would have compared two species and many of the differences they found are not actually species differences but individual variation.

Chris
 
That's what I thought....c.chamaeleon in the north and c. africanus in the south.
Yep, except in the Nile delta you also find C. africanus coming north with the Nile to the coast, which is why you can also find them in Cairo. They seem to be restricted to that area, however in the northern part of the country.

Chris
 
Just curious --- Besides the tongue research, do you think there was more done with the bodies, eggs, digestive system? Understanding it is an odd question. Thanks!
 
Just curious --- Besides the tongue research, do you think there was more done with the bodies, eggs, digestive system? Understanding it is an odd question. Thanks!
Not sure, but I would guess so. The author of that study has published other SEM studies on Chamaeleo chamaeleon skin, for instance, so it is possible some of the same specimens were saved and used for these and other studies. In my lab I save the remaining tissue of specimens I use for studies so that I can use them in the future for other work, and that is fairly typical in many cases, particularly for specimens that are more difficult to get than just ordering them from a Biological Supply company.

Chris
 
Not sure, but I would guess so. The author of that study has published other SEM studies on Chamaeleo chamaeleon skin, for instance, so it is possible some of the same specimens were saved and used for these and other studies. In my lab I save the remaining tissue of specimens I use for studies so that I can use them in the future for other work, and that is fairly typical in many cases, particularly for specimens that are more difficult to get than just ordering them from a Biological Supply company.

Chris
So we're the other studies better than the tongue one in your opinion?
 
So we're the other studies better than the tongue one in your opinion?
They suffered from some of the same issues regarding a lack of appropriate background on what has already been done on the topic (part of why they failed to use appropriate terminology in the tongue paper), but they at least focused on comparing different age groups of the same species, so they didn't have the issue with their results not actually representing what they thought they were looking at. So, I'd say they are better, but still not as high of quality as I would have hoped or as they could have been with a little effort to review the literature.

Chris
 
So they were poorly prepared on their part by not studying what had been already done first...and/or maybe they were poorly "mentored"/not well directed ...or both maybe? Peer review must have lacked something too?
 
So they were poorly prepared on their part by not studying what had been already done first...and/or maybe they were poorly "mentored"/not well directed ...or both maybe? Peer review must have lacked something too?
Yep, quite probably all of the above. There are also inherent issues with equitable access to scientific literature that disproportionately impacts researchers outside North America, Australia and Europe, but in this case most of the background articles (particularly on the tongue) are available free online now, so that isn't the issue here. Regarding the peer review failing, this happens more with these fringe journals that these particular authors tend to target. Definitely frustrating.

Chris
 
Back
Top Bottom