My Tylototriton Taliangs and Yangi?

Here are my latest arrivals.
I have 6 CB Taliangensis and 2 CB Yangi (or CF Kweichow or kweichow)
I have had these Newts for over a month now, and have been observing them day and night.
I'm housing them in a semi aquatic setup,This setup has lot's of moss on top of cork bark ,which i mist every day/evening.The setup also has a dry area to the left of it so the tylo's can dry out their skin if they choose to do so.
I have noticed the Yangi go for swims very regularly,and are active during the day.These Newts are relatively small at the moment,although they are particularly bold and don't seem to be scared by me at all.The Taliang seem to be slightly more lethargic than the Yangi.I do however see the Taliang out hunting at night and during the day from time to time.
All of the Newts will except earthworms from my hand ,they are all quite bold,which i'm pleased about.The setup they are in at the moment is relatively small ,but it is temporary untill the end of september then they will be transfered to large 19litre food boxes where i will continue to feed them Earthworms and Lesserwaxmoth larvae and they can spend the winter in an unheated room fully terrestrial.
The Taliang seem to go into the water to poop especially straight after the water has been changed lol.Feeding the Newts in this setup is no problem,when the lights are turned off at night the worms emerge from the moss and literally fill the tank they are everywhere!!,Due to the agility of the worms and their slimey secretions they try to escape into the room.I have now built a lid from the original frame of the aquarium with mesh(Stop's the wife going nuts)
All of the Newts seem to be quite healthy,there are however 2 of them that need a little fattening up!. I did initially have the 2 skinny Newts housed seperately but they wouldn't eat anything,so i took a gamble and placed them in the Terrarium to try and let them de-stress.This actually paid off and spotted them two days later out during the day hunting and eating worms.

forgot to add the dry section

Also 4 of the Taliang are from Ummi (he's a legend)

Well done mate, would like to be kept up to date about all this lot you now have! You should do a blog about them on here lol

At the moment I am either sticking to calling them T.kweichowensis or T.cf.kweichowensis as this T.yangi (Tiannan Crocodile Newt) name isnt actually been officially accepted, its just being put forward as that name. Until its official, I won't be calling them T.yangi at all lol

Ok Mate.No worries are mine CF kweichow then?,They've been very aquatic the last few days

mr cyclone said:

Ok Mate.No worries are mine CF kweichow then?,They've been very aquatic the last few days

Click to expand...

Yeah definitely the T.cf.kweichowensis however I simply call them T.kweichowensis in person as it sound stupid with the CF part lol Yeah this time of year they seem to like being a bit more aquatic, I have noticed patterns in it.
Mind seem to go into the water at certain times (obviously they have no concept of time) in the day. However, I'm guessing that this is to do with the time of year for them as in the Winter season mine wouldn't go near the water at all... This is me guessing though with personal experience lol

Definitely T.cf.kweichowensis.
The proposed T.yangi name can be used tentatively as a synonim. If i remember correctly the new description is in chinese and none of us can even read it so it´s difficult to know if the data supports the species level category. Either way, both names allow us to separate them from known T.kweichowensis until we have access to the data and can see if it validates the classification.
These things are never official, it´s pretty much consensus and personal preference.

Ok cool, i did believe they were the CF/YANGI variety just wanted to make sure,as of the last 3 days these have been aquatic,and hunting day and night,As for the taliang they come out periodic to chill out and relax during the day from what i can gather,all are nice and healthy so that's what counts,will continue to clean and feed them heavily untill the end of next month then winter style tub them ,like Ummi for the cold months,I will then introduce them to a large semi setup in spring,I will post some more photo's soon

TylototritonGuy said:

At the moment I am either sticking to calling them T.kweichowensis or T.cf.kweichowensis as this T.yangi (Tiannan Crocodile Newt) name isnt actually been officially accepted, its just being put forward as that name. Until its official, I won't be calling them T.yangi at all lol

Click to expand...

Point 1 - as T.yangi is geographically isolated from T.kweichowensis and differs morphologically [there is further data, yet unpublished], labeling these animals as T.kweichowensis creates a risk of someone hybridizing animals under the probably mistaken belief they are one and the same.

Point 2 - as already mentioned, though less stringently: there is no such thing as "officially accepted". A published name is instantly valid if it meets ICZN rules for new names. New names are basically set in stone once properly published [meaning you can't just decide you don't like the name and create a new one later]. Recognition of the species named [but NOT the name used] is essentially a personal choice: if you examine the evidence used to identify a group of organisms as a distinct species which is separate from all others, you then decide for yourself whether that evidence does in fact identify a unique species. Alternately, you may follow the leads of others who have examined the case. In lieu of either of these, the wisest course is to accept a species as valid, at least until either of the other two options is possible. This way you avoid point 1 and avoid publishing data which could later turn out to be completely wrong if applied to the name used [ie, if T.kweichowensis is adapted to snowfall, while more southern T.yangi isn't]. FYI, in my experience, T.yangi can handle some amount of sub-zero weather, but a growing amount of information shows that sibling species are often adapted and restricted to fairly tiny differences in climate. See the recent papers on ecological niche modeling for Plethodon ouachitae, Plethodon fourchensis, and Desmognathus wrighti for examples. At this point, the number of people in the west who have examined the data is quite small, and none of them have said anything publicly. There is thus no way to "follow the pack". On the other hand, as I've pointed out in other threads, there are reliable physical differences and the two forms currently appear geographically isolated. The case for two species outweighs the case against, for which there is no evidence at all. I am working on making English information available, with the help of the author.

In any event, it is now pointless to use "cf. kweichowensis", since the former only serves to identify an unnamed form resembling T.kweichowensis, which in fact now has a validly published name of its own.

FrogEyes said:

Point 1 - as T.yangi is geographically isolated from T.kweichowensis and differs morphologically [there is further data, yet unpublished], labeling these animals as T.kweichowensis creates a risk of someone hybridizing animals under the probably mistaken belief they are one and the same.

Point 2 - as already mentioned, though less stringently: there is no such thing as "officially accepted". A published name is instantly valid if it meets ICZN rules for new names. New names are basically set in stone once properly published [meaning you can't just decide you don't like the name and create a new one later]. Recognition of the species named [but NOT the name used] is essentially a personal choice: if you examine the evidence used to identify a group of organisms as a distinct species which is separate from all others, you then decide for yourself whether that evidence does in fact identify a unique species. Alternately, you may follow the leads of others who have examined the case. In lieu of either of these, the wisest course is to accept a species as valid, at least until either of the other two options is possible. This way you avoid point 1 and avoid publishing data which could later turn out to be completely wrong if applied to the name used [ie, if T.kweichowensis is adapted to snowfall, while more southern T.yangi isn't]. FYI, in my experience, T.yangi can handle some amount of sub-zero weather, but a growing amount of information shows that sibling species are often adapted and restricted to fairly tiny differences in climate. See the recent papers on ecological niche modeling for Plethodon ouachitae, Plethodon fourchensis, and Desmognathus wrighti for examples. At this point, the number of people in the west who have examined the data is quite small, and none of them have said anything publicly. There is thus no way to "follow the pack". On the other hand, as I've pointed out in other threads, there are reliable physical differences and the two forms currently appear geographically isolated. The case for two species outweighs the case against, for which there is no evidence at all. I am working on making English information available, with the help of the author.

In any event, it is now pointless to use "cf. kweichowensis", since the former only serves to identify an unnamed form resembling T.kweichowensis, which in fact now has a validly published name of its own.

Click to expand...

Right thats good for you but in all honesty I'm not calling them something that nobody flaming calls them, I used the name "Yangi/Tiannan" for the first time the other day to a few people and they simply said "What the hell are they?" and they also said "Wait, so is it accepted that that's what they are now known by?" and I had to explain to them that the document is still unpublished.
If there is no official naming process then surely, I can call them anything I want? Why should anyone listen to someone they don't even know making up a new name? lol If that is the case that it doesnt have to be officially accepted then I will call them something and as I said why should I use someones Latin Name if it's not officially accepted?

In any case, not many people are going by this name. In fact I have told people numerous times after calling them T.kweichowensis that they aren't the true Kweichowensis so don 't go mixing them with the actual species and they fully understand this so why make a huge deal out of it and the possible risk of Hybridsation, because I have hardly seen any T.kweichowensis for sale anywhere to be mixed up with the CF's. Numerous shops are in fact selling these as T.kweichowensis so would you like to phone all of them up around the UK and maybe the rest of the world telling them that they are wrong? lol I tell people that it's under discussion as to the new name of this species and not to go breeding them unless with their own kind, but even then you said in your document that there's 4 possible new species?

But I would like to bring this up Frogeyes, didn't you name them yourself as T.liangshanensis/ Liangshan Crocodile Newts? So what happened to your study of them and does this mean that the T.yangi name takes over your use of T.liangshangensis (which in all honesty I think sounds better) because I was getting ready to start calling mine by that name lol Does that mean I could call them anything I want too, ok I will go with T.yunnanensis... See how easy it is? lol (I am being sarcastic I'm not actually calling them by that name)

I know there are huge differences between both of the talked about species besides the obvious looks so you don't need to explain them, however I personally don't see anyone actually using T.yangi at the moment (even people on this site that keep them and see that document) and sticking to the T.cf.kweichowensis. You said "it is now pointless to use "cf. kweichowensis"" So how did you come to that conclusion seeing as people haven't accepted the new name and can't even read the document? lol

Sorry if this appears rude or the such but I'm making a point here that just because someone has said "I'm calling these this Latin Name" doesn't make it official that everyone should call them by that name, plus all of that document the user uploaded is in Chinese lol Why wasn't it translated way before it was uploaded, which I think it should of been for everyone's sake instead of leaving all the keepers waiting for months while its being totally translated lol

I respect what your saying but I will wait (just like most people would) for the document to be available in English and for it to be finally Published before I decide about using the name, for the moment T.cf.kweichowensis will serve very nicely.

TylototritonGuy said:

If there is no official naming process then surely, I can call them anything I want? Why should anyone listen to someone they don't even know making up a new name? lol If that is the case that it doesnt have to be officially accepted then I will call them something and as I said why should I use someones Latin Name if it's not officially accepted?.

Click to expand...

Because if you want to use scientific nomenclature, you must follow taxonomic rules and these rules require that there is a single valid name. As FrogEyes said, you can choose to recognize a taxon or not but you don´t get to choose the name that taxon has. The name is proposed by the individual making the original description. As long as anyone is going to recognize their work, they must use the name that has been proposed. In this case, if you are going to recognize these animales as distinctive, then the apropriate name for them would be T.yangi as these have been described as a species under that name. Before there was any description, T.cf.kweichowensis served a purpose. Now, though, it´s pointless to use any other name than the one proposed in the description of the species.
I know i´m repeating myself but just to make it very, very clear, one gets to choose wether to recognize a taxon or not (that bit is not official, ever), but if one does, the name that taxon receives is not up for grabs, the name is official.


It doesn´t matter if people are not yet used to the new name. If it did matter then we would still be saying Triturus alpestris, Triturus vittatus or Cynops orientalis... Trends change as new information appears.

Azhael said:

Because if you want to use scientific nomenclature, you must follow taxonomic rules and these rules require that there is a single valid name. As FrogEyes said, you can choose to recognize a taxon or not but you don´t get to choose the name that taxon has. The name is proposed by the individual making the original description. As long as anyone is going to recognize their work, they must use the name that has been proposed. In this case, if you are going to recognize these animales as distinctive, then the apropriate name for them would be T.yangi as these have been described as a species under that name. Before there was any description, T.cf.kweichowensis served a purpose. Now, though, it´s pointless to use any other name than the one proposed in the description of the species.
I know i´m repeating myself but just to make it very, very clear, one gets to choose wether to recognize a taxon or not (that bit is not official, ever), but if one does, the name that taxon receives is not up for grabs, the name is official.


It doesn´t matter if people are not yet used to the new name. If it did matter then we would still be saying Triturus alpestris, Triturus vittatus or Cynops orientalis... Trends change as new information appears.

Click to expand...

But they haven't been Described yet, the document is still unpublished so how is it now to be known by this name? lol Surely it needs to be Published to allow this T.yangi to be used... the writing Frogeyes did on the Liangshan Crocodile Salamanders was back in 2009 so really T.liangshanensis should be what they are known by? lol

Sorry but I simply don't understand how this works seeing as its unpublished work. Seems very weird that the name T.yangi gets put onto a forum without being published and therefore the Taxon should now be known as that.

Perhaps i´m missing something, but i think the paper has been published....it´s just that it´s in chinese and we can´t understand what it says. Regardless, it´s the description of the species and the name is valid.

The paper IS published. It's just in Chinese and the English abstract doesn't provide much detail. There is no requirement that publication be in English. The first validly published name is permanent, so in this case, the valid species is T.yangi. If it is later found to be identical to another species, the older name will take precedence, whether that be T.shanjing, T.kweichowensis, or whatever [depending upon which species it is identical to]. Names follow a system of rules, but the determination of the species they identify does not. Names are assumed to be valid until and unless someone reviews the original paper and points out something that doesn't fit ICZN standards. In that case, the resolution depends upon exactly what rule hasn't been met, although only a small number of them lead to a paper not being recognized at all. Since this is a printed journal in its 14th volume, and the paper describes and compares four new taxa to previously known ones, it meets the minimum standard.

As for the other name, I didn't formally propose anything. I DID suggest a possible name online, but that name was not "published", and therefore doesn't exist. If I HAD published it, it would be valid, since I did have obvious traits with which to differentiate the species. Since I didn't, I don't have to worry about corroboration or refutation by DNA data, having a correct place of origin [I guessed wrong initially, as I also noted online], or being lambasted as the next reviser-of-everything-I-haven't-spent-decades-in-the-field-with [a name I prefer not to use, so as to not draw him any additional attention in web searches].

If you'd like a copy of Mian's paper, let me know. Maybe you know someone who can read it