Madagascar’s massive new amphibian diversity

Mantella aurantiaca © Brian Gratwicke

For some herpetologists the idea of describing a species of reptile or amphibian that was previously unknown to science is a career ambition. So how about discovering the fact that a country like Madagascar, whose amphibian fauna has already been greatly increased in the last 20 odd years (up from 133 species in 1991 to 244 species at present) is likely to have anywhere between 129 and 221 undescribed species of amphibian! Combining molecular, morphological and bioacoustic techniques an international team led by David Vieiteshas found that there are currently 129 confirmed candidate species (differing clearly by morphological and bioacoustic characters and usually showing high genetic differentiation – likely to be distinct, undescribed species), 92 unconfirmed candidate species (deep genealogical lineages, but no data on the morphology and bioacoustics) and 37 deep conspecific lineages (deeply divergent genealogical lineages, but showing no morphological or bioacoustic difference to currently described species) that remain undescribed in the scientific literature.

Phylogenetic, geographic, and historical patterns of undescribed amphibian diversity in Madagascar

This is mind boggling stuff given the number of researchers that are currently active in the taxonomy of Madagascar’s amphibians. Whats more, the study has found that these new species are not just limited to areas that have not been surveyed in any great detail, but are geographically widespread. These results have important implications for our current understanding of amphibian biodiversity and as the authors state:

“the number of tropical amphibian species is probably underestimated at an unprecedented level at a global scale. Extrapolating our data to other less-studied tropical regions predicts that the number of amphibian species worldwide could double or possibly even quadruple before saturation in new discoveries can be expected.”

The original article, as published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is available here.

Endnote output styles: Amphibia-Reptilia, Journal of Herpetology and The Herpetological Journal

Endnote X2

Love it or hate it Endnote has become one of those bits of essential software for writing scientific publications. Although a new copy of Endnote X2 ships with 3300+ journal output styles the only herpetology journal that gets a look in is Copeia. Searching on Google failed to locate output styles for other major herp journals, so I have started to make my own. I thought I would offer them up to other users in case they are of use.

The first three templates are for:

Amphibia-Reptilia

Journal of Herpetology

The Herpetological Journal

These templates were made based on the instructions for authors provided by each journal. None of which have information regarding references to web based material so they only include formatting for journal articles, books, book chapters and theses.

Feel free to email me if you note any errors and I will try and rectify them. I hope I can make more available as and when I am able to do them myself.

How wrong can one journalist be?

I have just stumbled across this story on the Metro website. Sure, journalists are constantly pushed for time and may overlook the odd fact. But come on – Australians hunt for dangerous reptile?! Unbelievable!

Probably the most inaccurate herpetological story in the world??

Taxonomic traumas for cobras and rattlesnakes

Naja ashei - or is it Spracklandus ashei !!?? (National Geographic)

The world of reptile taxonomy has not been immune to controversy in the past. However, the sudden appearance of two papers announcing significant changes to the systematics of two major snake lineages has already raised more than a few eyebrows.Raymond Hoser’s articles, published in his own journal, under his own editorial direction, are only the most recent in a long line of controversial studies that have previously been restricted to the taxonomy of Australian reptiles.

In the first of these “papers“, the self styled “Snake Buster” has split the two previously accepted genera of rattlesnakes (Crotalus & Sistrurus) into 9, reviving 5 previously named genera and describing 4 as new. In addition a further seven sub-genera are named. The second details the splitting of the true cobras (Naja) into 4 genera, two of which he described as new. However, cracks are starting to appear in his descriptions,  as one of the “new” genera is in fact a synonomy (See discussion here)

Hoser’s approach to taxonomy has received significant criticism in the past for a number of scientific reasons (for details see Wüster et al., 2001 and Williams et al., 2006), which only appears to have reinforced his determination to “publish and be damned” by those he describes as the “truth-haters” (Hoser, 2009a; 2009b). As a result, these taxonomic papers have also become a soap box for his vitriolic rants

Naja haje, Wellsus haje or Uraeus haje ??!!

about those who question his methods, as well as a vehicle for the description of new species and genera. In fact, recently they appear to be less about taxonomy as the “detail is kept to a minimum” (Hoser 2009a; 2009b). Hoser’s failure to (a) realise that initial criticisms lay with the scientific method of his work and not the man himself and (b) attempt to address said crticisms in subsequent work, has resulted in his descriptions losing any credibility with the majority of herpetologists. Sure, throw enough shit around and eventually some will stick (e.g. Hoser’s reclassification of reticulated pythons to Broghammerus has subsequently been confirmed by Rawling et al., 2008), but it means you leave a lot lying around for other people to clean up.

Undoubtedly these forays into the taxonomy of snake lineages outside Australasia will bring his work to the attention of many more herpetologists and taxonomists. It seems unlikely that the new classification of rattlesnakes will be adopted by many of them, but it might spur a push for a change in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature rules regarding where taxonomic descriptions can be published. However, I have no fear that there is more to come – maybe the Vipera spp. next?

Herpetology vs. Herpetoculture?

Pickled Herps

To kick off this blog I thought it would be useful for me to distinguish between these two terms. This is as much for my benefit, as for any readers there may be, as it helps to define what I hope to blather about in the future.

Herpetology - the branch of zoology concerned with reptiles and amphibians.

Herpetoculture – the keeping of live reptiles and amphibians (or “herpetofauna”) in captivity, whether as a hobby or as a commercial breeding operation.

Clearly, whilst the two are related, they do ultimately have different goals. As a herpetologist I am interested in the physiology, behaviour, taxonomy and ecology of reptiles and amphibians and these are the topics this blog will address. In particular, I hope to highlight some of the more interesting scientific literature that I stumble across during my research. Don’t get me wrong, I bear no ill will to any herpetoculturists out there, but this is not an area that I lay any claim to knowing any great detail about. I therefore leave it to those more qualified than myself to blog about the latest goings on in herpetoculture…