I have followed the controversy over anole classification with interest. Amphibian taxonomists faced a similar issue with the reclassification of Bufo and Rana, among many lesser-known genera. I discovered that most herpetologists quickly accept new taxonomies (with the exception of extreme and ill-founded taxonomies, like those proposed by Hoser). So attempts to resist will likely fail. However, there is an intermediate option that is being used successfully for some taxa and I think it could be profitably pursued for anoles. That is, use subgenera. In short, keep using Anolis as you have historically, but if you think the phylogenetic analysis of Nicholson et al. meets your standards of quality, treat their genera as subgenera. Anolis is the oldest valid taxon and so it has priority. I argue that the name Anolis (Dactyloa) latifrons is more informative taxonomically, phylogenetically and biogeographically than is the name Dactyloa latifrons. What are the arguments against using subgenera? I can think of none. I advocate doing this for Bufo and Rana (making certain that each is monophyletic, of course). The argument against this move is that some relatively well-known names of genera would be lost, but I do not think that is the case. For anoles nothing is lost if one uses subgenera. Subgenera are being used successfully for salamanders. Hydromantes is a well-known group of salamanders, admittedly small in relation to Anolis. It is clearly a clade based of substantial DNA sequence data and osteological-myological data. Yet some wanted to break it up because it occurred in Europe and North America. To me this is one of the best reasons for keeping it a single genus. So I have advocated a three-subgenera classification: Hydromantes (Hydromantes) for the American species and Hydromantes (Speleomantes) and Hydromantes (Atylodes) for the European species. This highlights the fact that Hydromantes is monophyletic (no-one questions this) and also reminds us of the extraordinary distribution. With colleagues I have proposed seven subgenera for the 121 species of Bolitoglossa, three subgenera for the 36 species of Oedipina, and two subgenera each for the 22 species of Batrachoseps and the 55 species of Plethodon.
Why not use subgenera for anoles?
- Use Subgenera In Anole Taxonomy - October 10, 2012
Skip Lazell
Excellent! The perfect solution. So glad to hear we even get Bufo and Rana back. Thanks Dave.
Ambika Kamath
Using subgenera also seems like a nice way to ease into using Phylocode. If other monophyletic clades within these subgenera are later deemed ecologically or evolutionarily important, the most logical way in which to incorporate these subclades into an already three-tiered name would be to adopt Phylocode.
Rich Glor
Excellent suggestion. If one thing is clear it is that we have many options available that don’t require the wholesale changes to binomials advocated by Nicholson et al.
Todd Jackman
This suggestion is the best compromise possible. My first reaction was that the use of subgenera in Anolis would be rare and increase the number of possible ways that species are discussed in the literature. But under the scenario that different workers are using different solutions taxonomically, those using subgenera would engender the least amount of confusion and be maximizing phylogenetic information as well.
Anthony Geneva
The Drosophila community has been using subgenera for some time now, albeit Drosophila has problems that Anolis does not, e.g. paraphyly. In previous comments it has been suggested that infrarank names like subgenera and clades are not likely to be known or used widely, but that has not been the case with Drosophila; although there are no Diptera systematists or phylogeneticists in our Drosophila-heavy department the subgenera, and the taxa included in them are well known.
Jim Schulte
This is an acceptable solution and one we took by naming two subgenera within Liolaemus (although in retrospect not well executed since one of the subgeneric names was the same as the genus name). Although one also could use these as Phylocode clade names without having to designate them as subgenera. We could still keep the clade Anolis as phylogenetically defined in previous works and just properly phylogenetically define the proposed new “genera” as subclades within this larger clade. Problem solved 🙂