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?