Jean sent me the paper right after it was published. I agree with many of the conclusions, though not all.
As to whether it's "accepted", I think that reflects a common misconception about taxonomy - very few things are "official". Acceptance is up to the reader to determine, although part of that is determining whether the methods used and conclusions made were actually appropriate. For instance, regarding Molgini as a tribe rather than Molginae as a subfamily, is pretty much in agreement with everything published in a very long time. However, it's simply a matter of preference. Adherents of phylocode tend to split everything in two. That means that they will only accept two subfamilies normally, and any others will become families or tribes within subfamilies. At higher levels, they are quite happy to use unranked categories paired with families or groups of families. Where Salamandridae is concerned, it makes little difference, except to make clear that newts are closer to Pleurodeles than either is to Salamandra. I prefer to recognize newts as a subfamily, as overall they differ distinctly from the Pleurodeles line, and have a similar distribution [which indicates to me that they evolved in parallel into different niches].
I think that many of the subgenera proposed are unnecessary, though potentially valid. All they do in this paper is identify which of two species a third is most closely related to. That's the same principle used in phylocode, but a rather superfluous number of names if applied across the animal kingdom [or even amphibians] as a whole. Imagine - two subgenera for every three species! Another reason for many of the names is basically for Dubois to enforce his personal nomenclatural doctrine. They [Dubois really] argue that names should be drastically shortened for ease of use. By naming every possible grouping according to his own standards, the rest of the world is forced to follow his standard on the principle of "first valid proposed name". I personally find scientific names to be quite informative BECAUSE they often use full root words, suffixes, and prefixes which have specific meanings in the languages of origin. Shortening them arbritrarily obscures these root meanings. His arguments are also based on a purely eurocentric point of view - although Linnaean nomenclature is Latin in rules and European in origin, it is intended to be universal in application. Many names now have origins [and authors] in languages which are quite comfortable with longer words. I have no problem with Protohynobius puxiongensis. I have no problem with Lyciasalamandra. I DO have a problem with Algandra, which completely obscures BOTH root words, Algeria and Salamandra. I would be comfortable with Algirandra, as it at least makes one of the roots clear.
Also because of the limited analysis involved and the very constrained groupings (one or two species), it is likely to prove that some of the subgenera are invalid. Further studies are bound to show that the type species of one subgenus is actually closer to a member of a different subgenus, rendering one of the names a useless synonym.
For such an extensive treatment, I have to admit to being somewhat appalled at the data used to reach the conclusions. Ease of captive care? Since when is that a trait which can definitively be assigned to the organism? Ease of captive care is a *human* trait, in that we have to figure out what's required. If an organism doesn't do well in our care, I would argue that it's OUR fault for not getting things right, not the organism's fault for being difficult, and not a reflection of species relationships.
On the other hand, some things were overdue. Salamandra longirostris was clearly a distinct species needing elevation, the African Salamandra were clearly several distinct species, and Laotriton was definitely distinct from Paramesotriton. The systematics they use for other Paramesotriton is clearly premature, as the evidence I have looked at shows that some species they placed arbitrarily in subgenus Paramesotriton are actually related to Allomesotriton (P.caudopunctatus). That also renders the distinction of Allomesotriton questionable, as the distinctive physical traits may only apply to one species in the clade! I don't recall then applying a plethora of subgenera to Paramesotriton, even though they felt the need to split the three species of Notophthalmus and the four of Taricha. The need for splitting of Cynops is long overdue. It was suggested decades ago that Cynops should be three genera, corresponding to Cynops, Hypselotriton (Hypselotriton) and Hypselotriton (Pingia) as applied by Dubois and Raffaelli. I have argued elsewhere as to the usage of Pingia, as it's STILL a synonym of Pachytriton. That leaves the orientalis group as Hypselotriton until such time as a new name is proposed.
Overall, it's an interesting read from a nomenclatural philosophy point of view. It's also quite useful from the perspective of genera and species recognized. The subgenera are of mixed value, and the subfamilies and tribes are a bit of a case of personal preference. Other recent works which add phylocode to the mix (Frost et al) recognize only two subfamilies, but they didn't include Salamandrina, which has been possibly the most confusing and uncertain member of the family. They place Salamandrina as a basal Pleurodelinae. Another study placed it close to Tylototriton, and others have placed it closer to Salamandra, Triturus, or basal within the family! The only consistent conclusion is that it is distinctive. I prefer to recognize Salamandrinae, Salamandrininae, Pleurodelinae, and Molginae. As long as Salamandrina isn't buried close to another genus, this will be valid in most situations, and it also recognizes morphological, behavioral, and geographic trends within the family. As long as a name has been validly proposed, anyone is free to interpret the data and adopt the names as they feel best. Within the bounds of priority and monophyly [oldest names apply; a name should be applied to a group which includes ALL related species]
mods, if this is a duplicate post, please delete the earlier unrevised version.
