Cynops chenggongensis continued...

[paul]

Hi Tim,

very nice and interesting pics!

A great mountain area. I would like to go there too.

Thanks for sharing them.

Paul

 

[jesper]

Yeah, after seeing those pics and knowing there are fine sals there I'm definitely going there sometime in the future when(hopefully

) I've got the dough necessary.

 

[mattias]

/M

Text from Zhao´s Studies on Chinese Salamanders.

Quite some sample Kou and Xing used, over 100 specimens...

"When living, most of them have,..."
In my opinion to say that a specimen then HAVE to display this row to actually be a member of the species is to say that a Cynops ensicauda without a dorsolateral redish row is not a C. ensicauda.

Angus, do you have more pictures, of many different animals perhaps?

I could get hold of Kou & Xing´s work and scan it for others to translate.

Best wishes
Mattias

 

[mattias]

I would like to stress again that old and unsufficient original descriptions should not be seen upon as "holy". They have to be revised over and over again, since new information will be added and new tecniques develops.

If there are only a few described characters that is defining a monotypic genus and there is more species found, clearly closely related to that species. How could then they be defined if the description for the genus is the same as for the species as is very common? Of course then the genus must be redefined and all the taxa revised with new character judging.

/M

 

[mattias]

By the way Tim, you were talking about specimen #350297 at the Chengdu Institute of Biology. From where is that information.

Holotype YU-A824037, thats a total different number. Now I get really confused. Has the label been changed or are we talking more than one holotype???

/M

 

[TJ]

Mattias,

Thanks for providing that info. That's the same book I have on order.

I simply don't know enough to lean either way, but that's the same thing I'd intended to point out earlier, before I found that it was pointed out already in a post by Jesper, that "most" have the lines with spots, which I take it to mean not all.

Thorn/Rafaelli's 2000 description said "chez plupart des exemplaires" (the majority of specimens).

As for the specimen at the institute, what I saw perhaps deserves closer examination by somebody who reads Chinese. It is this list of specimen serial numbers:

http://www.cib.ac.cn/search_db/db4/search.asp

Does this mean that a specimen of the species is there? Or that that is the number that has been assigned to the species, regardless of whether a specimen is there? I just don't know. It's also interesting to see there appear to be numbers for two unidentified Cynops.

 

[nate]

Mattias: Paul and I already covered the "most of them" comment (go back and read). That's nothing new. My point was asking Angus if he had any with the stripe. He doesn't.

Calling Kou and Xing's description "insufficient" is only speculation on your part, until proven otherwise. Of course old descriptions need revisions, especially questionable species, like chenggongensis. However, there are no revisions in this case yet. All we have to go by is the original description. So if we do not follow the original description, then anything (including ensicauda) can be identified as chenggongensis because there is no evidence to the contrary.

(Message edited by nate on October 03, 2004)

 

[TJ]

Good point, Nate. I look forward to seeing or hearing the details of the original document. I find it surprising that two decades later, that remains the only primary document to go by. It would be equally interesting, in my view, if Angus had an altogether new species

For the non-scientists here (and for those of us who slept through biology class), here are a few definitions:

Holotype: The single specimen on which the taxon was based or the single specimen designated as the name-bearing (or primary) specimen.

Allotype: A term designating a specimen of opposite sex to the holotype.

Paratype: Specimens of the type series other than the holotype.

So I see from Mattias' info that Kou and Xing had a look at at least 79 newts that appeared different from run-of-the mill cyanurus, and then determined they had sufficient evidence to conclude they had a new species on their hands. Can one assume that they reached this conclusion on the basis of morphology alone? Two decades ago, did scientists even have the capability to assess, for example, Nei's genetic distance values? If not, once the know-how and the technology became available, were Chinese herpetologists not compelled to go back and assess genetic distance to reconfirm the validity of the earlier species determination? Or is this not the normal practice?

(Message edited by tj on October 03, 2004)

 

[TJ]

 

[TJ]

Here's another gratuitous pic of Yunnan Province to lighten up the mood in here

 

[mattias]

Don´t you meen 118 adult specimens? (Holotype + allotype + paratypes.) And also 4 juveniles.

There are not that many herpetologists in China. You don´t put the work of a well known scientist or professor in the garbage in such a system, especially not if he is still active...

Scientific dogmas doesn´t die, but people do. In time the scene is mature to a revision.

All controversial species in the western world are not genetical tested for yet eighter.

/M

 

[mattias]

Really exiting and beautiful area!

I must go there someday.

/M

 

[nate]

Tim, you've already seen details of the original document in "Rare and Economic Amphibians of China". I say this because while I did not have the entire thing translated (for reasons of time and courtesy of the translator), my translator did tell me what the other sections were talking about. It included very detailed information on morphology typical of a formal species description (toe lengths, etc.). It is another document to go by.

Kou and Xing looked at 120 animals by my count which they thought looked sufficiently different from cyanurus to describe as a new species. They went on morphology alone, it is safe to assume that. We were still in the formative stages of looking at species on the genetic level back then. I don't know about China, but here in the US it is generally not the normal practice to go back and look at genetics of described species simply to validate a species (though it does happen). Usually, there is another question or experiment involving genetics that happens to uncover the new species or invalid species, and then formal revisions are made.

It certainly would be interesting if Angus had a new species! I would love that as much as all the other Cynops enthusiasts here. But I'm still waiting for someone to point out any reason/feature to think it is anything other than cyanurus.

 

[mattias]

Then count again, 122 in total that is. 118 adults and 4 juveniles.

The paper apear to be short (pp. 51-54) but it should be enough to get all the needed information in. As Nate have seen it, it seams clear that it is no haste work and probably a justified species after all with such a large sample. Yes, speculations of coarse.

If none of Angus specimens fit the description of chenggongensis in the original descriptive work (only Kou & Xing´s work and nothing else as earlier mis-used in the discussion should be labled "the original description") and they clearly are not cyanurus then we all have a fiesta on the forum!

/M

 

[jesper]

Problem being that i haven't seen any evidence that they are not cyanurus. I firmly believe that in science scepticism must come first. The ones that believe that it is a new species or chenggongensis, can you plz remind us what parts of these animals' morphology that deviate from the orginal description of cyanurus. That would be very informative. Thanks.