Hi everyone. I recently received and have to determine what to do with the following paper (editor’s note, for background, see this recent post):
- Nicholson, K.E., Crother, B.I., Guyer, C., & Savage, J.M. 2018. Translating a clade based classification into one that is valid under the international code of zoological nomenclature: the case of the lizards of the family Dactyloidae (Order Squamata). Zootaxa 4461 (4): 573–586. DOI:10.11646/zootaxa.4461.4.7
As an administrator and bureaucrat at Wikispecies I have to decide how to proceed with this group of reptiles. I have made a tentative start here but please realize this is a simple start easily undone.
I recall the last time this came up, in 2012. I joined the discussion at the time. However, despite my comments at the time, I did not follow splitting the genus up then. In the end, my view is for stability and consensus. By stability, I mean the actual meaning of stability under the ICZN code, which does not apply here. But consensus could.
Why is this paper different? Well, first up, last time it was a PhyloCode paper and as such is relatively easy to ignore, as it does not submit to the rules of nomenclature. However, this time it is an ICZN compliant paper so you cannot ignore it. As stated many times, names are to considered as valid on publication or refuted–there is no ignore. So the above paper may be refuted, but not ignored.
Last time, many argued that the genus is monophyletic. This is not really an argument against splitting. It’s a position statement. The order Testudines is also monophyletic, should every turtle species (275 living species) all go back into the genus Testudo? The current genera or lack of them present are only a reference to the history of research. It does not mean it is the most suitable arrangement.
More importantly is diagnosibility. Can the new proposed genera and their inherent species be adequately diagnosed? This is a more important question.
Note that a genus with some 500 species is generally considered too big. Many writers over the years have deemed between 100-200 species about the maximum size wanted. However, this does still need to address the previous point on diagnosibility.
Another point people brought up last time was stability. Well, stability actually refers to the mononomial and whether a name can be replaced by a forgotten name. It is used as a reason to reverse priority. This is the code purpose of stability. Note that the combination first up does not have to be stable, and second is a taxonomic decision, not a nomenclatural one. Hence outside the code.
So what I am after: Basically I want to see through any commentary if the people who work on anole’s are likely to use this new nomenclature. If they are, I will adopt it at Wikispecies. That will require the moving and reorganisation of some 550 pages. I do not take that on lightly. Hence I am asking you, the people who work on anoles, first. My decision will be based on the answers I get. I do not work on anoles. I am a turtle and tortoise specialist. But I do have a job to do at Wikispecies.
For your information, I have discussed this briefly with Peter Uetz at Reptile Database also. He also was not sure what to do, but remembered the last time it came up here. So I am reaching out to all of you on this issue. I am after consensus, not stability. As I said, stability does not apply here. But I will say that to reject the nomenclatural proposals of Nicholson et al. (2018) does require a refutation. They have presented to science in good faith in a very good journal, Zootaxa. We cannot ignore this and as a taxonomist, I will not.
In advance, I thank everyone for their comments. I think this issue needs to be openly debated.
- Nomenclature of Dactyloidae: Revisit and Opinions Wanted - October 1, 2018
Paulo Roberto Melo-Sampaio
Hi Scott, congratulations for the post.
As an anologist working on two main clades (Norops and Dactyloa), I will use the taxonomy proposed by Nicholson et al. (2018). Is adequate, logical and useful to clades and reflect the understanding about continental genera and species subject of my work.
I strongly recommend my peers to adopt new arrangement.
Sincerely,
Paulo
Roberto Langstroth
Ditto. It improves our understanding of the evolutionary of the Dactyloidae and increases the information content of the names.
Levi Gray
If simply “increasing the information content of the names” was so important, these authors would recognize Placopsis, Trachypilus, and Draconura rather than Norops (these are monophyletic groups within the Norops clade). But since the goal of this paper is to promote the use of Norops, breaking that group into higher information content names is not something the authors want to adhere to.
The topic has been addressed here, and thoroughly. If this particular paper has changed minds, I’d be interested in hearing out why. I suspect researchers that were using Anolis for the entire group will continue to do so, and that use will continue to be valid.
Robert Powell
I don’t claim to be a systematist, so my opinion might not matter. However, like most field biologists, I do prefer taxa that are diagnosable, even if only by geographic range. For example, if the colubroid families Colubridae, Natricidae, and Dipsadidae (all monophyletic clades) are recognized, you must know the genus of a snake in the United States and Canada to determine to which family it belongs. That being awkward, many taxonomists treat these taxa as subfamilies of Colubridae (sensu lato). Apparently the proposed anoline genera are diagnosable on the mainland, but for many Antillean anoles, you must know the species before you can determine the genus to which it belongs. So, while I understand that very large genera are less informative than smaller entities, I also understand that many of the genera to which Antillean anoles would be assigned cannot be readily diagnosed. Treating them as subgenera (or merely clades) recognizes the distinctions without the problems of identifying species before assigning them to genera. Which is the lesser of evils? I guess for the moment, I’ll stick to a single encompassing genus Anolis. Also, while I would prefer a consistent taxonomy, as Levi noted, at what point does one stop recognizing monophyletic groups as genera (or families for that matter)?
Scott Thomson
Under modern best practices using phylogentics as best evidence monophyly is a requirement of a genus in that paraphyly or polyphyly mean you must do something about the genus in question. However, there is no requirement to not split a monophyletic genus if there is reason to do so. As a generalization a genus is a group of closely related species more similar to each other than any other related taxon or groups of taxa. They are separated by a decided gap as Ernst Mayr put it. However, in the end it is up to the taxonomist where to apply these ranks.
I do find it strange you must identify a taxon to species, before you can ascertain its genus. Are these really species? Or are they geographical morphs. You cannot play it both ways, ie being conservative with genera but liberal with species causes many issues, including what you describe. However, its not my place to judge here. I am just trying to ascertain what to call them in a checklist.
Cheers
Kevin de Queiroz
The easiest way for me to address these questions is to copy the original and insert my comments after each paragraph. Here they are with the original questions from Scott Thomson set off with quotes.
“I recall the last time this came up, in 2012. I joined the discussion at the time. However, despite my comments at the time, I did not follow splitting the genus up then. In the end, my view is for stability and consensus. By stability, I mean the actual meaning of stability under the ICZN code, which does not apply here. But consensus could.”
Stability has a general meaning. The reason that the meaning of stability under ICZN is narrower is that the ICZN only promotes stability in that narrower sense (more on this below).
“Why is this paper different? Well, first up, last time it was a PhyloCode paper and as such is relatively easy to ignore, as it does not submit to the rules of nomenclature. However, this time it is an ICZN compliant paper so you cannot ignore it. As stated many times, names are to considered as valid on publication or refuted–there is no ignore. So the above paper may be refuted, but not ignored.”
Contrary to the implication here, a paper following the PhyloCode does submit to “rules of nomenclature”. The PhyloCode (ICPN) is a set of rules of nomenclature that is an alternative to those in the ICZN. A couple of other things should be clarified. Under the ICZN, names are available if published according to the rules of that code. Available names cannot be ignored in the sense that if a taxon is to be named, the name must be chosen from among the available names. The valid name is normally the one among the available names that has priority (though priority can be overturned to promote stability). However, the names that are correctly used in any given case are determined only partly by the rules of the ICZN; they are also determined by the decisions of taxonomists—in particular, by the ranks that taxonomists assign to taxa (groups). The ICZN does not infringe on the freedom of taxonomists to adopt whatever ranks they prefer; it only dictates which names are to be used in the context of a particular ranking scheme. There is no refutation of ranking schemes in a scientific sense. Ranks are artificial devices. People can prefer one ranking scheme over another and present arguments to support their preferences, but they cannot refute a ranking scheme in the sense of presenting evidence that it is incorrect. In addition, people do not have to present reasons for accepting one ranking scheme (taxonomy) over another; they are free to accept or reject taxonomies as they please, although it is common to present reasons for adopting one taxonomy over another if alternatives have been proposed.
“Last time, many argued that the genus is monophyletic. This is not really an argument against splitting. It’s a position statement. The order Testudines is also monophyletic, should every turtle species (275 living species) all go back into the genus Testudo? The current genera or lack of them present are only a reference to the history of research. It does not mean it is the most suitable arrangement.”
Most of the people debating the taxonomy of anoles agree that names should be applied to monophyletic groups (clades)—so I agree that monophyly is not an argument for or against lumping or splitting. The difference concerns which names are to be associated with various clades (in the context of the rank-based nomenclature, which clade or clades are to be assigned the rank of genus). Maintaining all anoles in Anolis is an argument for stability—for maintaining the association of the name Anolis with the clade to which it has long been applied rather than changing its association to a smaller clade.
“More importantly is diagnosibility. Can the new proposed genera and their inherent species be adequately diagnosed? This is a more important question.”
People often prefer for genera to be easily diagnosable, but there are no rules about this (certainly not in the ICZN given its position on taxonomic freedom). Many of the proposed genera of anoles under the splitting proposal are not easily distinguished from one another (a specimen without locality data belonging to a species that one is not already familiar with would be difficult to assign to the correct genus).
“Note that a genus with some 500 species is generally considered too big. Many writers over the years have deemed between 100-200 species about the maximum size wanted. However, this does still need to address the previous point on diagnosibility.”
These are arbitrary decisions, and they vary from one large taxon (and corresponding taxon-based discipline) to another. According to Wikipedia, there are 57 genera of flowering plants that have at least 500 species, there are two genera of bees that have more than 1000 species each, and one plant genus that has over 3000 species.
“Another point people brought up last time was stability. Well, stability actually refers to the mononomial and whether a name can be replaced by a forgotten name. It is used as a reason to reverse priority. This is the code purpose of stability. Note that the combination first up does not have to be stable, and second is a taxonomic decision, not a nomenclatural one. Hence outside the code.”
As noted above, stability under the ICZN is limited because the ICZN doesn’t do a very good job of promoting stability, despite that being one of its fundamental objectives. One of the main ways in which the 1999 (4th) edition of the ICZN promotes stability better than previous versions is by allowing priority to be overturned more easily when forgotten names are rediscovered. That’s a limited form of stability. The ICZN does a particularly poor job of maintaining stable associations between names and taxa (clades, monophyletic groups). Part of the motivation for developing the ICPN (“PhyloCode”) is to improve stability in the associations between names and taxa. It accomplishes this by adopting definitions that explicitly tie names to monophyletic groups. By contrast, the ICZN instead maintains the associations between names and ranks, which is not very useful given that the groups are scientifically meaningful while the ranks are not.
“So what I am after: Basically I want to see through any commentary if the people who work on anole’s are likely to use this new nomenclature. If they are, I will adopt it at Wikispecies. That will require the moving and reorganisation of some 550 pages. I do not take that on lightly. Hence I am asking you, the people who work on anoles, first. My decision will be based on the answers I get. I do not work on anoles. I am a turtle and tortoise specialist. But I do have a job to do at Wikispecies.”
If you mean the splitting of Anolis into 8 genera, I do not intend to adopt that proposal. Poe et al. (2017) have proposed a superior taxonomy in that first, it does a better job of maintaining the associations between names and clades (not only for the name Anolis, but also for others such as Chamaeleolis, Chamaelinorops, and Xiphosurus), and second, it provides names for more monophyletic groups/clades (15 vs. 10). (It also doesn’t have redundant names such as Dactyloinae and Dactyloa in the taxonomy of Nicholson et al.) However, even if one is not comfortable with names whose applications are governed by phylogenetic definitions (“PhyloCode names”), the taxonomy of Poe et al. (2017) can still be used in the context of the ICZN, with the same advantages just described, by ranking the clade to which they applied the name Anolis as a genus and treating the other names as informal clade names. It should also be noted that the taxonomy in the new paper by Nicholson et al. (2018) is really just the same taxonomy that those authors proposed in 2012, with the addition of subfamilies and updates of the species lists for the 8 genera.
“For your information, I have discussed this briefly with Peter Uetz at Reptile Database also. He also was not sure what to do, but remembered the last time it came up here. So I am reaching out to all of you on this issue. I am after consensus, not stability. As I said, stability does not apply here. But I will say that to reject the nomenclatural proposals of Nicholson et al. (2018) does require a refutation. They have presented to science in good faith in a very good journal, Zootaxa. We cannot ignore this and as a taxonomist, I will not.”
I have to disagree with the statement that stability does not apply here. One of the main reasons for preferring to use the name Anolis for the clade to which Poe et al. (2017) applied that name is stability—that is, maintaining the association between the name Anolis and the same group of lizards to which that name has long been applied. I would also point out here that common names, which are governed by common sense rather than by the outdated rank-based rules of the ICZN, are often more stable than their scientific counterparts (see the famous statement by Wald [1952] about mandrills and guinea baboons quoted in Crother et al. [2000]). In this context, it’s worth noting that Nicholson et al. (2018) repeatedly refer to members of the entire clade as “anoles” even though many of those lizards are not in the smaller clade that they call Anolis and should instead be called “dactylo-ids” in the context of their proposed taxonomy.
Scott Thomson
Hi Kevin thanks for your reply.
I was restricting my usage of the term stability to the code definition of the name. Hence common names etc are not part of this. Neither is the combination of the genus plus the species. Where I have to deal with this common names are not used, they can be noted at the bottom of the page, but all taxa are listed by their valid scientific name only.
Cheers
Kevin de Queiroz
Sorry, a lot of the formatting was lost when I posted my comment. I hope one of the administrators will fix it by separating Scott’s original statements and my comments into different paragraphs.
Scott Thomson
General reply to some of the points made. Although I appreciate the wish for what conservation calls stability, ie that species do not get moved between genera and names do not change. It should be remembered that taxonomy is a science too. It will develop with new technologies and methods. It will therefore cause the change of binomials. I would suggest one of my recent papers that discusses this issue:
Thomson SA, Pyle RL, Ahyong ST, Alonso-Zarazaga M, Ammirati J, Araya JF, et al. (2018) Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biol 16(3): e2005075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075
In any case. I am interested in everyone’s opinion here, so yes all opinions count. As I said I do not work on Anoles, so I am trying to ensure wikispecies best serves your community on this issue.
Kevin de Queiroz
Another related motivation for developing a phylogenetic system of nomenclature (the PhyloCode) is so that taxonomic changes will reflect real scientific changes, such as changes in the inferred composition of a clade or rejection of a taxon that is not monophyletic. Unfortunately, the traditional system (ICZN) allows many taxonomic changes that do not reflect scientific changes, such as the “splitting” of a monophyletic group (change of binomials) by changing rank assignments.
Doug Menke
As an outsider to the world of anole systematics, I am puzzled why it is insufficient to simply apply subgenera nomenclature as suggested by David Wake and others. This preserves stability, prevents confusion, and adds information. This is certainly my strong preference.
Jonathan Losos
Kevin de Queiroz had a long comment in response to Scott’s post. Unfortunately, the comment somehow was garbled by WordPress. I have fixed the comment, but am also reprinting Kevin’s comment here:
The easiest way for me to address these questions is to copy the original and insert my comments after each paragraph. Here they are with the original questions from Scott Thomson set off with quotes.
“I recall the last time this came up, in 2012. I joined the discussion at the time. However, despite my comments at the time, I did not follow splitting the genus up then. In the end, my view is for stability and consensus. By stability, I mean the actual meaning of stability under the ICZN code, which does not apply here. But consensus could.”
Stability has a general meaning. The reason that the meaning of stability under ICZN is narrower is that the ICZN only promotes stability in that narrower sense (more on this below).
“Why is this paper different? Well, first up, last time it was a PhyloCode paper and as such is relatively easy to ignore, as it does not submit to the rules of nomenclature. However, this time it is an ICZN compliant paper so you cannot ignore it. As stated many times, names are to considered as valid on publication or refuted–there is no ignore. So the above paper may be refuted, but not ignored.”
Contrary to the implication here, a paper following the PhyloCode does submit to “rules of nomenclature”. The PhyloCode (ICPN) is a set of rules of nomenclature that is an alternative to those in the ICZN. A couple of other things should be clarified. Under the ICZN, names are available if published according to the rules of that code. Available names cannot be ignored in the sense that if a taxon is to be named, the name must be chosen from among the available names. The valid name is normally the one among the available names that has priority (though priority can be overturned to promote stability). However, the names that are correctly used in any given case are determined only partly by the rules of the ICZN; they are also determined by the decisions of taxonomists—in particular, by the ranks that taxonomists assign to taxa (groups). The ICZN does not infringe on the freedom of taxonomists to adopt whatever ranks they prefer; it only dictates which names are to be used in the context of a particular ranking scheme. There is no refutation of ranking schemes in a scientific sense. Ranks are artificial devices. People can prefer one ranking scheme over another and present arguments to support their preferences, but they cannot refute a ranking scheme in the sense of presenting evidence that it is incorrect. In addition, people do not have to present reasons for accepting one ranking scheme (taxonomy) over another; they are free to accept or reject taxonomies as they please, although it is common to present reasons for adopting one taxonomy over another if alternatives have been proposed.
“Last time, many argued that the genus is monophyletic. This is not really an argument against splitting. It’s a position statement. The order Testudines is also monophyletic, should every turtle species (275 living species) all go back into the genus Testudo? The current genera or lack of them present are only a reference to the history of research. It does not mean it is the most suitable arrangement.”
Most of the people debating the taxonomy of anoles agree that names should be applied to monophyletic groups (clades)—so I agree that monophyly is not an argument for or against lumping or splitting. The difference concerns which names are to be associated with various clades (in the context of the rank-based nomenclature, which clade or clades are to be assigned the rank of genus). Maintaining all anoles in Anolis is an argument for stability—for maintaining the association of the name Anolis with the clade to which it has long been applied rather than changing its association to a smaller clade.
“More importantly is diagnosibility. Can the new proposed genera and their inherent species be adequately diagnosed? This is a more important question.”
People often prefer for genera to be easily diagnosable, but there are no rules about this (certainly not in the ICZN given its position on taxonomic freedom). Many of the proposed genera of anoles under the splitting proposal are not easily distinguished from one another (a specimen without locality data belonging to a species that one is not already familiar with would be difficult to assign to the correct genus).
“Note that a genus with some 500 species is generally considered too big. Many writers over the years have deemed between 100-200 species about the maximum size wanted. However, this does still need to address the previous point on diagnosibility.”
These are arbitrary decisions, and they vary from one large taxon (and corresponding taxon-based discipline) to another. According to Wikipedia, there are 57 genera of flowering plants that have at least 500 species, there are two genera of bees that have more than 1000 species each, and one plant genus that has over 3000 species.
“Another point people brought up last time was stability. Well, stability actually refers to the mononomial and whether a name can be replaced by a forgotten name. It is used as a reason to reverse priority. This is the code purpose of stability. Note that the combination first up does not have to be stable, and second is a taxonomic decision, not a nomenclatural one. Hence outside the code.”
As noted above, stability under the ICZN is limited because the ICZN doesn’t do a very good job of promoting stability, despite that being one of its fundamental objectives. One of the main ways in which the 1999 (4th) edition of the ICZN promotes stability better than previous versions is by allowing priority to be overturned more easily when forgotten names are rediscovered. That’s a limited form of stability. The ICZN does a particularly poor job of maintaining stable associations between names and taxa (clades, monophyletic groups). Part of the motivation for developing the ICPN (“PhyloCode”) is to improve stability in the associations between names and taxa. It accomplishes this by adopting definitions that explicitly tie names to monophyletic groups. By contrast, the ICZN instead maintains the associations between names and ranks, which is not very useful given that the groups are scientifically meaningful while the ranks are not.
“So what I am after: Basically I want to see through any commentary if the people who work on anole’s are likely to use this new nomenclature. If they are, I will adopt it at Wikispecies. That will require the moving and reorganisation of some 550 pages. I do not take that on lightly. Hence I am asking you, the people who work on anoles, first. My decision will be based on the answers I get. I do not work on anoles. I am a turtle and tortoise specialist. But I do have a job to do at Wikispecies.”
If you mean the splitting of Anolis into 8 genera, I do not intend to adopt that proposal. Poe et al. (2017) have proposed a superior taxonomy in that first, it does a better job of maintaining the associations between names and clades (not only for the name Anolis, but also for others such as Chamaeleolis, Chamaelinorops, and Xiphosurus), and second, it provides names for more monophyletic groups/clades (15 vs. 10). (It also doesn’t have redundant names such as Dactyloinae and Dactyloa in the taxonomy of Nicholson et al.) However, even if one is not comfortable with names whose applications are governed by phylogenetic definitions (“PhyloCode names”), the taxonomy of Poe et al. (2017) can still be used in the context of the ICZN, with the same advantages just described, by ranking the clade to which they applied the name Anolis as a genus and treating the other names as informal clade names. It should also be noted that the taxonomy in the new paper by Nicholson et al. (2018) is really just the same taxonomy that those authors proposed in 2012, with the addition of subfamilies and updates of the species lists for the 8 genera.
“For your information, I have discussed this briefly with Peter Uetz at Reptile Database also. He also was not sure what to do, but remembered the last time it came up here. So I am reaching out to all of you on this issue. I am after consensus, not stability. As I said, stability does not apply here. But I will say that to reject the nomenclatural proposals of Nicholson et al. (2018) does require a refutation. They have presented to science in good faith in a very good journal, Zootaxa. We cannot ignore this and as a taxonomist, I will not.”
I have to disagree with the statement that stability does not apply here. One of the main reasons for preferring to use the name Anolis for the clade to which Poe et al. (2017) applied that name is stability—that is, maintaining the association between the name Anolis and the same group of lizards to which that name has long been applied. I would also point out here that common names, which are governed by common sense rather than by the outdated rank-based rules of the ICZN, are often more stable than their scientific counterparts (see the famous statement by Wald [1952] about mandrills and guinea baboons quoted in Crother et al. [2000]). In this context, it’s worth noting that Nicholson et al. (2018) repeatedly refer to members of the entire clade as “anoles” even though many of those lizards are not in the smaller clade that they call Anolis and should instead be called “dactylo-ids” in the context of their proposed taxonomy.
Scott Thomson
Thanks for re-posting this. Yes I clearly missed some of Kevin’s original post.
My definition of stability is purely nomenclatural. For those that differ in this view fair enough. My point in saying it was not applicable is I do not think this is a nomenclatural issue actually. Nomenclature decides if names can be used, ie availability, it then orders them by priority or other means as appropriate. How they are used is taxonomy. All the names involved are available, can be placed into a single synonymy in order, or used. That’s the end of the nomenclatural side of it.
My interest here is how they will be used and that is a taxonomic issue. Freedom of taxonomy means also that those studying the classification of a group, by whatever means, determine how the names can be used and apply them accordingly. Now the most recent taxonomic review, 2018, has them as genera. What I need to see is two things. Will this taxonomic review be refuted, since it is based on science it deserves to be treated with science. From this I need to determine how best to utilise this information on Wikispecies.
As I tried to make clear I do not work on these taxa, because of that I am in no position to determine the validity of these taxa. I should follow the paper, but I am also aware of the resistance to having Anolis split. So I am just trying to see how to proceed.
In saying all this, my own opinion is twofold. It seems to me that Anoles have been classified with a combination of conservative and liberal taxonomy, hence its a bit of a miss-match between generic and species recognition. This may be contributing to diagnosibility issues. Secondly, without impying how this should have been done, in my own experience well established genera are best split into sub-genera as a stepping tone to getting them to genera. As this gets people used to it. Then if over time it seems more useful to refer to the different sub-genera rather than the encompassing genus, then usage will take hold and they will be elevated later. They will have less resistance though.
Someone asked why cant they just be subgenera, of course they could be. The point is though the taxonomists who did the work chose otherwise and gave their reasons for this. Whether this was the best decision is not mine to make. I am just trying to see what happens next.
Any comments I argue against is only because I do not think those comments address the issue, or give due credence to the peer reviewed published and most recent review of the groups taxonomy.
Cheers, and thanks everyone for your comments.
Christian L Cox
I study anoles, and I am likely to use the Poe et al 2017 classification (all anole lizards in the genus Anolis) for many of the same reasons listed above by others.
Peter Uetz
Like Scott, I have to make a similar decision for the Reptile Database, and similarly, I prefer to follow objective arguments. However, nomenclature is not entirely objective but also determined by utility.
The Reptile Database is organizing information so it’s easy to find while representing current taxonomic knowledge (similar to Wikispecies and actually taxonomy in general).
That said, a single genus “Anolis” represents the information that these species are monophyletic and pretty similar.
By contrast, 8 different genera represent the information that each genus is monophyletic and this arrangement surely contains “more” information — at least as far as species lists are concerned. However, splitting also (over-) emphasizes that these genera are phenotypically quite different, which they aren’t.
As a biologist, I thus prefer the subgenus solution as they encapsulate the similarity while offering different names for different clades. Brian Crother (co-author on both Nicholson papers) told me that subgenera are “functionally meaningless”. Not sure what he means by that, but may be able to explain this here.
As a database curator, I would prefer genera, given that the Reptile Database doesn’t have a separate category (“data field” or “search field”) for subgenera. However, that is a matter of how information is organized and made accessible, and thus can be solved by information technology.
Importantly, the Reptile Database also aims to provide character information such as diagnoses (we do have close to 4000 diagnoses in the database already). Alas, there are no good (i.e. practical) diagnoses for all those 8 genera. A mid- to long-term goal of the Database is to provide searchable character tables to ID genera and species. Sure, sometimes there are paraphyletic taxa that are morphologically (almost) indistinguishable, so they need to be split. But that’s not the case in anoles, which is the main reason why I tend to support the “Anolis” (s.l.) concept for the time being.
BTW — even with a single genus “Anolis” you can certainly search for Nicholson’s genus names in the Reptile Database (e.g. Audantia: http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/advanced_search?genus=anolis&common_name=audantia&submit=Search)
Roberto Langstroth
Hi Peter,
It’s important to note that the Reptile Database follows the Hedges & Conn taxonomy for the American skinks once recognized as Mabuya. The phenotypical differences between their genera are certainly no greater than those between, for example, Dactyloa and Norops.
On a practical basis for someone working in South America, the separation of Dactyloa and Norops helps my understanding of the species, while the splitting of the South American Mabuya seems to greatly overestimate the differences between the members of the group, especially the recognition of monotypic genera such as Notomabuya, Manciola, and Exila.
Bolivia, for example, now has six genera of skinks (Aspronema, Copeoglossum, Exila, Manciola, Notomabuya, and Varzea) with poorly resolved evolutionary relationships and rather minimal phenotypic differences between them.
Perhaps because there is not a very strong community of students of the Neotropical skinks to debate the matter, it wasn’t a hard decision to the Hedges & Conn taxonomy.
Josh Hall
I’ll preface my comments with a few important statements:
Until I joined Dan Warner’s lab in 2015, I was completely unaware that the green anole was just one of ~500 species of anoles. I thought those little buggers were the only ones!
I’m not a taxonomist or systematist or anything of the like.
I don’t consider myself an ‘anole biologist’; however, I use anoles in nearly all my research.
I am, at my very core, a boat-rocker who instinctively views popular consensus with suspicion and contempt in nearly all avenues of thought (I don’t pretend this is healthy, it’s just how my brain works).
When I first started studying anoles, I did two things: 1) I read Losos’ book, which was great. 2) I read all of the anole taxonomy papers and all discourse/debate on anoleannals that precipitated from the Nicholson et al 2012 paper.
Finally, words are tremendously important to me. The words we use color our thinking, and our day to day thinking drives the decisions we make and how we interact with our world. I believe what we call things matters.
I study brown and crested anoles. I refer to them as Norops sagrei and Ctenonotus cristatellus; however, I have published 5 peer-reviewed papers since starting grad school (and submitted 1 paper to the upcoming Anolis Newsletter!) and in these manuscripts I call these animals Anolis sagrei and Anolis cristatellus. This is because I publish papers with folks who are uncomfortable using the 8 genera system, and I refuse to allow my personal preferences to make coauthors feel uncomfortable.
I prefer the 8 genera system for three reasons: the first is concerned with science, the second is concerned with semantics, the third is a matter of personal preference.
First: I prefer the 8 genera system proposed by Nicholson et al precisely because I am NOT an expert in taxonomy. I have to rely on the published literature to make all decisions regarding things outside my realm of expertise. When I read the Nicholson et al 2012 paper, I found it convincing. I did not find Poe’s published response convincing and adding to this, I found the Nicholson et al rebuttal to his response to be sufficient. I believe that Scott raises the most valid point for me – this has been published and must either be accepted or refuted. It cannot be ignored. I am not qualified to refute it.
Kevin raises many important points (as did many folks when all of this surfaced in 2012); however, I cannot reference a blog post as sound reasoning for rejecting science published in the literature.
Second: I prefer the 8 genera system because I think, from the standpoint of language, it is useful. For all practical purposes, ranks higher than species are arbitrary; however, a genus is different precisely because we use it in everyday conversation. When I was teaching high school science, I referred to organisms by their Genus and specific epithet (e.g. Drosophila melanogaster – when we did genetics experiments, which I miss doing – sigh). When I walk down the street in Miami and see lizards scuttling past, calling their names as Ctenonotus cristatellus, Ctenonotus distichus, Norops sagrei, Anolis carolinensis, Deiroptyx equestris, Audantia cybotes does something different in the brain than saying Anolis…everybody. I think the single genus taxonomy masks much of the diversity that exists within the group. A practical example: a researcher at Auburn wanted to sample across the diversity of anoles to look at variation in a particular gene. Due to my familiarity with the 8 genera system, I immediately realized that we could get a decent sample across the phylogeny with a quick trip to south Florida.
I’ve heard folks claim that this issue doesn’t matter much since we are really talking about arbitrary units; however, I argue that the genus is special simply because it is a word we always use when we talk about the critters we study. I’ve also heard folks say that they don’t care – calling the animal a different name doesn’t change it. This is simply not true. Words matter because they necessarily influence the way we think about the world. This is a central tenet of postmodern thought: knowledge is not something we simply absorb from the universe, it is something we create, and its creation is necessarily entangled with all our current knowledge and past experiences.
Third: Like I said, I’m a boat-rocker. I think life is most interesting when feathers (or in this case, scales) get ruffled. I admit, in this respect, I am always going to be biased against the status quo.
I would really love for some of you who are much wiser than I am to disagree with my thoughts in a helpful way. As someone who relishes a good debate (which is probably why I’ve been so interested in this discussion), I love entertaining alternate opinions.
Scott Thomson
Interesting response. You hit on one key concept of nomenclature. The names are supposed to be useful. They are supposed to indicate what the organism can be called and what its related to. It is a utility for discussing the organism so others know what your talking about.
To me I find it difficult to believe that 500 odd species are equally and closely related. There is structuring in there. These are not plants, where 2000 species are almost identical due to constant hybridising and multiple breeding strategies. The later effectively causes cloning.
Personally I do not understand why people would want to keep them all in the same genus, to unwieldy, it does not tell you anything but give a label.
As I said earlier and in agreement with Peter Uetz I think a better option in this case would have been to use subgenera, but its not my call. Elevate them to genera once people are used to it.
With what Brian Crother said of subgenera I imagine he is meaning that because they do not have to be used they are pointless. Some people think this. Although its not always the case, once something is defined as a subgenus it eventually becomes a genus once people are used to it. hey get used and it becomes convenient. Plus eventually someone figures the subgenera are paraphyletic or something and spits it up.
Just remember though I need people to give good reasons for not following a published paper. Many of the reasons given do in the end come down to personal preference.
Thomas Sanger
Scott,
Let me be upfront, I am a longtime user and supporter of the single genus, Anolis. The proposed change is an arbitrary division of a monophyletic clade into barely diagnosable units. It seems like your stance on this debate boils down to little more than “a paper got published so we have to follow it,” essentially putting the fate on this genus and its community of biologists in the hands to a few reviewers and editors. While taxonomists have an important place in Anolis history, the modern Anolis community is not just a handful of field biologists specializing on diagnosing the species and their relationships. It is a vibrant, expanding, interdisciplinary community that spans genetics, developmental biology, immunology, biomechanics, endocrinology, physiology, behavior, ecology, evolutionary biology and probably some other fields that I am forgetting. Since 2014 nearly 9000 papers have been published that reference Anolis (Google Scholar). Because of this diversity of approaches, Anolis has an important place in biology education textbooks from primary education through the college level. It remains a model system for the evolutionary dynamics of adaptive radiation and convergent evolution. Many of the people I mention (and work with) are not going to come to this website to comment on this post, but can be readily found in the literature. Before splitting up this long-established monophyletic group I encourage you to think about the rift that this will cause for this broader community, the cohesiveness of the literature, and biology education. As previously pointed out, the new genera are barely recognizable and were chosen with a line pre-chosen line at the level of Norops. Other than the adhering to the rules of taxonomy, there is no biological reason to disrupt the stability of Anolis. In fact, it could damage the pace of research within our exciting community of biologists.
I apologize if my frustration boils to the surface here, but I fundamentally cannot support an argument that is based only in the rules of taxonomy when it has the potential to damage a much larger community. Stability should be supported unless there are good biological reason to upend it (e.g., new phylogenetic relationships, readily diagnosable groups). Until a few years ago I never heard anyone complain that their research was hindered by the use of a single genus. This appears to be a fabricated argument used to support the division of Anolis into multiple genera. Although you don’t appear to support the Phylocode, I believe that our community would readily get behind formal naming of clades following Nicholson’s suggestions. Upending the taxonomy of the group seems short-sighted. If you do choose to support the division based on this paper, please wait to update your website for a few months until the next paper is published refuting this recent publication as I suspect that this cycle will continue for some time.
Thom Sanger
tsanger@luc.edu
Scott Thomson
Sorry but also being upfront from your statements you do not consider taxonomy either important or a science. Which was one of the main points in the paper I linked earlier.
As a generalisation taxonomy is poorly or not taught anymore in universities, funding has driven taxonomic research into molecular phylogenetics, which is not taxonomy, it is a tool of taxonomy.
I treat taxonomy as a science, I cannot ignore properly published science because people do not like it.
You make two points that are valid to the argument, one of which I brought up at the outset. Diagnosibility. Are these genera diagnosible, from a taxonomic perspective are there characters that can diagnose these taxa. If not then you have a point. The other point is that there will be another cycle. Highly likely and I expect that which is why I posted to find out if this will be refuted. By science, not preference, opinion and position statements.
Levi Gray
As pointed out by Kevin above, the ICZN allows researchers to accept or reject ranking schemes, and does not require an explanation (though often they are given).
It seems you want the anole community to engage in a conversation that most of us don’t find useful. You started by saying consensus is a reason to favor a ranking scheme. You have gotten your answer on that in the form of a poll. You can wait a couple years for verification (what do you have to lose?) or make a decision now. But I don’t suspect very many people are going to want to argue with you over the unscientific question of whether we should be using the Nicholson et al. taxonomy or another one.
Scott Thomson
The ICZN has nothing to do with this as it is not a nomenclatural issue.
Yes I have my answer concensus was what I was interested in. I have seen that I will leave things as they are. As I said from the outset.
My comments against the anti taxonomy, anti science stance of those who would rather dogma has nothing to do with the decision I have made. I have played devils advocate here in the hope of seeing some reasonable argument presented. To little avail. However, I can see the concensus which is what I was after.
Kat Valero
The hurricane of DNA-based taxonomy that is still blowing through the disciplines surely did give rise to interesting new ideas such as integrative taxonomy, phylogenetic species concept, or unnamed OTUs (I’m guilty of the latter example). Given the fact that here isn’t any objective criterion for defining a genus, and on top of this different DNA fragments have different evolutionary histories, I wouldn’t touch existing generic taxonomy with a 10 ft pole. Perhaps a good example for the damage that can be done is that I have been working with frogs for much of my career, but can’t figure out the ID of any taxon I encounter in a database unless I pull up Amphibiaweb and look for the successive changes in generic taxonomy first. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Unless of course when discovering something that isn’t classified yet.
Blair Hedges
I am fine with the Nicholson et al. (2018) taxonomy for anoles. Breaking up a large genus like Anolis is a normal process in taxonomy to make a group more manageable. It facilitates diagnosis of new species in the future and should not be confused with disrupting stability. People tend to resist change, in this case learning new names (“revision shock,” Zootaxa 3681: 297-298). However, after a few years the shock is over! I sometimes name subgenera but do not recommend that category as an alternative because they are cumbersome to use, requiring parentheses between genus and species. Consequently, people often omit subgenera from taxonomic lists, which then loses their value in organizing biodiversity.
Two counter-arguments could be (1) that it will affect a large field of biologists negatively, and (2) that non-taxonomists will not benefit. However, recent taxonomic changes that affected large communities proved the opposite: For example, anthropologists accepted a major change in our family, Hominidae, to encompass great apes AND humans instead of just humans, which also meant that all fossil humans are now called (specifically) hominins instead of hominids. And microbiologists adopted “Bacteria” and “Archaea” to replace Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. They were not required, and I did not necessarily agree with either change, but mention them because they happened without much fanfare (no pun intended). Likewise, breaking up Anolis would benefit non-taxonomists because the generic names provide an easy way to discuss different evolutionary clades (as opposed to the “XYZ Species Group”). Taxonomic revision is good in the long term even if it may not seem that way in the short term.